Alternative voting

[trunolimit]

First watch this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

explains the problem with our voting system

then watch this one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE...feature=relmfu

thoughts?

[tokenuser]

It works.
The thinly veiled "Wallaby" is Australia - where this system has been in place to over 100 years.
A point missed from the video is that the voting process is more like a burger chains "have it your way" ordering method. You actually get two ways to vote - the default party line where you pick a candidate, and if they lose, THEY say how their votes are distributed (you know this advance, so it's no surprise). Or you can rank the candidates in your order of preference.

An interesting side effect is "conscious voting". I typically voted green party as my first choice, knowing they wouldn't win, and then ranked my votes accordingly. What this does is highlight to the people who do win what issues are important. So, you find parties adopt policies of the losing minor parties to attract those voters as the primary vote.

[trunolimit]

It's sad that we have no way of getting this type of thing going in the states. there is too much for the two main parties to lose.

If there was a way to get it pushed through I'd be all for it. Petitions, write a letter but I know there is no hope. I'm going to crawl in a hole and die now.

[loug002]

Our voting system was fine for the first...100 years or so? As technology advanced, it became outdated (as do most things).

I think the Australian method works best to be honest. I typically vote straight party, simply because I don't like or trust the other party that much. But if I could order my candidate choices by preference that would be so much better in case there is a candidate from the other side I could get behind.

[bobv13]

Originally Posted by trunolimit

It's sad that we have no way of getting this type of thing going in the states. there is too much for the two main parties to lose.

If there was a way to get it pushed through I'd be all for it. Petitions, write a letter but I know there is no hope. I'm going to crawl in a hole and die now.

I'm with you. I'd like to see this method of voting adopted but doubt it will ever come to pass.

[hellhound]

Sorry but I'm not in the mood to go back and read pages of posts on the Australian system etc...
Voting has been on my mind recently now that the USA vote is less than 2 months away and once again I'm disgusted with how the process works.
I have 2 choices other than Obama or Romney that I feel have a better vision on how to govern the USA... Do I write them in as a "protest vote" (but maybe get them enuff clout to be included next vote).. or do I vote the lesser of 2 evils?

Redistricting, ballot requirements, and the Electoral College pretty much nullify my national position vote and I only go to the polls for the state votes on representatives, ballot initiatives and referendum.

BTW.. I'm pretty much socially liberal (pro-choice, pro-med marijuana, help feed he poor and hungry), but fiscally conservative (cut the waste, fraud and abuse in domestic spending along with cutting foreign aid via weapons and the military complex)..

Politically, I usually feel like I'm screaming at a wall because w/ all the hoops needed to jump thru... a moderate candidate (willing to compromise/work with others to at least get some sort of legislation to help the public thru) wont get on the ballot.
End of rant... need dinner, and now that I've riled myself up... a mixed drink

[loug002]

Originally Posted by hellhound

Sorry but I'm not in the mood to go back and read pages of posts on the Australian system etc...

there's only one page.

Voting has been on my mind recently now that the USA vote is less than 2 months away and once again I'm disgusted with how the process works.

Well good! Voting is important!

I have 2 choices other than Obama or Romney that I feel have a better vision on how to govern the USA... Do I write them in as a "protest vote" (but maybe get them enuff clout to be included next vote).. or do I vote the lesser of 2 evils?

Well if you mean Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, you'd be wasting your vote. Ron Paul is definitely the wrong choice. Gary Johnson isn't bad; but he wouldn't have much of a chance, the 2-party system ensures that.

Redistricting, ballot requirements, and the Electoral College pretty much nullify my national position vote and I only go to the polls for the state votes on representatives, ballot initiatives and referendum.

I'll agree with redistricting. Ballot requirements are a state by state basis, and only ensure the best man gets on the ballot. The electoral college ensures that we know who president is or isn't. If we went based off of popular vote, you'd have morepeople throwing a fit than you do now.

If all you do is go to vote for state and local stuff; then you should have no say about national politics

BTW.. I'm pretty much socially liberal (pro-choice, pro-med marijuana, help feed he poor and hungry), but fiscally conservative (cut the waste, fraud and abuse in domestic spending along with cutting foreign aid via weapons and the military complex)..

I'm VERY social liberal. I'm pro-gay marriage, pro-choice, I'm pro-medical marijuana, im for the government helping the poor and hungry but keep religion completely out of it.

Fsically, I'm more a cut the waste--which to me is the military. I agree that we need to get a rid of the fraud and abuse, BUT that doesn't mean we take an all and nothing approach that conservatives in Congress want (ALL things are cut so NOTHING gets to anyone.)

Politically, I usually feel like I'm screaming at a wall because w/ all the hoops needed to jump thru... a moderate candidate (willing to compromise/work with others to at least get some sort of legislation to help the public thru) wont get on the ballot.
End of rant... need dinner, and now that I've riled myself up... a mixed drink

moderates don't exist. the extremists killed them. Even Obama, who is willing to work with the other side, had to become too partisan for anything to happen.

[hellhound]

Originally Posted by loug002

If all you do is go to vote for state and local stuff; then you should have no say about national politics

I go to vote on all things.. But I know that here in Maryland, with such a huge liberal Democrat demographic in Baltimore City and 1 other county outside DC, any independant or moderate vote for President is negated due to the Electoral College rules. If its 52% - 48% the whole state's votes go to the Dems, I think some states used to split their votes (like in the nomination delegate vote) and I'd prefer that idea over "winner take all"...

[loug002]

Originally Posted by hellhound

I go to vote on all things.. But I know that here in Maryland, with such a huge liberal Democrat demographic in Baltimore City and 1 other county outside DC, any independant or moderate vote for President is negated due to the Electoral College rules. If its 52% - 48% the whole state's votes go to the Dems, I think some states used to split their votes (like in the nomination delegate vote) and I'd prefer that idea over "winner take all"...

Nebraska still bases theirs on what the individual areas do.

For example, Romney could win the entire state BUT Omaha. Obama could win Omaha but not the rest of the state.

[alaskalonewolf]

Wondering what would happen if some of the Presidential hopefuls, considered lowering their sights a bit and tried running for say, dunno, maybe governor of Alaska?