[EM] Poll Ballot, from Richard
Chris Benham
cbenhamau at yahoo.com.au
Thu Jul 18 13:57:16 PDT 2024
It's a weird and very undemocratic feature of the US system that getting
ballot access is very very difficult, and that it's possible for
candidates for the office of President of the whole US to be on the
ballot in some states but not others.
If the establishment Democrats and their media friends don't like the
split-vote feature of their system, then they should
campaign/lobby/vote/whatever to fix it.
The UK has a parliamentary system with the 650 members of the House of
Commons elected by FPP in single-member districts. The average number
of candidates per seat in the most recent general election was nearly 7.
> There were 4515 candidates standing, which constitutes a record
> number, with a mean of 6.95 candidates per constituency. No seat had
> fewer than five people contesting it;Rishi Sunak
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rishi_Sunak>'sRichmond and
> Northallerton
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmond_and_Northallerton>seat had the
> most candidates, with thirteen.^[354]
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_Kingdom_general_election#cite_note-376>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_Kingdom_general_election#See_also
Probably a lot of votes were involuntarily wasted and the Conservative
Party (the ruling party that was defeated by the Labour Party) was
stung more by the split-vote problem than was Labour. According to the
wikipedia article the Conservative Party got 23.7% of the vote and
another (much newer) right-wing party "Reform UK" got 14.3%.
This would have been a big factor in the extreme disproportionality of
the result, but at least the winning party was the one that got more
votes than any other.
The Labour Party won 63.2% of the seats with 33.7% of the vote. I am
sure that the result would have been less disproportional if Hare had
been used, at that turnout (that was the lowest in a long time) would
have been higher.
> Smaller parties took a record 42.6 per cent of the vote in the
> election, in part due to anti-Conservativetactical voting
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_voting>.
What the last part refers to is that in some seats Labour had no chance
of winning, so voters whose favourite might have been Labour voted for a
third party that had some chance of defeating the Conservative.
The upside of this debacle is that it has apparently increased support
for some sort of PR. I think the version Labour likes is some
not-so-great fixed Party List system with some apportionment algorithm
that favours large parties (in comparison to other PR systems).
Chris B.
On 19/07/2024 3:04 am, Richard, the VoteFair guy wrote:
> On 7/18/2024 10:06 AM, Michael Garman wrote:
> > Would those be the "Gore suckers" who only lost the presidency by 537
> > votes because roughly 97,000 voted Green?
>
> Michael, thank you for this reply to Michael's comment (copied below).
> It's much better worded than what came to my mind.
>
> My view is that there is no such thing as a "spoiler candidate."
>
> Instead it's called "vote splitting." It's a flaw in some
> vote-counting methods. It's not a flaw in how voters vote. And it's
> not a flaw in who chooses to enter or exit the contest.
>
> Richard Fobes
>
>
> On 7/18/2024 10:06 AM, Michael Garman wrote:
>> If Biden loses Rhode Island, we'll have far bigger problems to worry
>> about than arguing about electoral reform on the internet.
>>
>> Would those be the "Gore suckers" who only lost the presidency by 537
>> votes because roughly 97,000 voted Green?
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 1:04 PM Michael Ossipoff
>> <email9648742 at gmail.com <mailto:email9648742 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> How would I know what will happen in your state, whatever it is.
>>
>> Maybe you’ll succeed there, or maybe you’ll just split the vote &
>> lose.
>>
>> But even if Biden wins *in your state* that doesn’t mean you & your
>> state aren’t splitting the non-Trump vote & giving the overall win
>> to Trump.
>>
>> But suit yourself.
>>
>> Don’t be so overconfident. It could be a repeat of the Gore suckers
>> in 2000.
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 05:31 Michael Garman
>> <michael.garman at rankthevote.us
>> <mailto:michael.garman at rankthevote.us>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Mmm yes I’m going to be the one “splitting the vote” when Biden
>> wins my state in a landslide, genius.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 5:22 AM Michael Ossipoff
>> <email9648742 at gmail.com <mailto:email9648742 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Sorry, I can’t control your voting in November.
>>
>> You’re going to vote for Biden—or obediently for whomever
>> the DNC says.
>>
>> Trump will win because you insist on splitting the vote.
>>
>> …& when Trump wins, don’t forget to congratulate yourself
>> for achieving that by your dishonest hold-your-nose sucker
>> voting.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 02:01 Michael Garman
>> <michael.garman at rankthevote.us
>> <mailto:michael.garman at rankthevote.us>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> And how do you intend to make that happen?
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 4:43 AM Michael Ossipoff
>> <email9648742 at gmail.com <mailto:email9648742 at gmail.com>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> My magic plan is honest voting.
>>
>> Not splitting the non-Trump between honest voters &
>> giveaway-sucker voters.
>>
>> Not having a high percentage of us throw their vote
>> away on someone none of us want.
>>
>> Do you see the lunacy of most of the voters holding
>> their nose & voting for someone that none of us
>> want?
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 01:15 Michael Garman
>> <michael.garman at rankthevote.us
>> <mailto:michael.garman at rankthevote.us>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> What’s your magic plan to make a third party
>> candidate win in 2024? A plan that doesn’t rely
>> on unrepresentative Internet alternative method
>> polls.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 1:43 AM Michael Ossipoff
>> <email9648742 at gmail.com
>> <mailto:email9648742 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 22:16 John T Whelan
>> <john.whelan at astro.rit.edu
>> <mailto:john.whelan at astro.rit.edu>> wrote:
>>
>> Richard gets at the fundamental problem
>> with polls like this: anyone willing to
>> run for President as a third party
>> candidate in the current political
>> climate under the current electoral
>> system has shown a lack of judgement and
>> responsibility which makes them an
>> unacceptable choice.
>>
>> No, it just means they aren’t lesser-evil
>> suckers.
>>
>> The-Two-Choices are for the suckers who
>> believe whatever ther TV tells them
>>
>> e.g. the bizarre looney belief that two
>> candidates & parties that none of us want
>> could be The-Two-Choices.
>>
>> Yes, it would be better to have a better
>> electoral system. That’s why we’re all here.
>>
>> But that doesn’t mean we have to continue to
>> be such complete suckers now.
>>
>> Michael Ossipoff
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
> info
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20240719/e65df4de/attachment.htm>
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list