Hate Bush AND Kerry? Here's an idea for new voting system

[Ancalagon the Black]

Many people on this board (and in America) are dissatisfied with the options thrown up by the current electoral process. While folks still believe in democracy, they cringe at the fact that we are more often than not forced to choose between two almost equally repugnant alternatives. Some of us take a principled stand and ‘throw away our vote’ by casting our ballot for a third-party candidate. Some of us swallow hard and cast our vote for whichever of the Big Two candidates we consider to be less evil.

What with the way the USA is currently divided, it looks as though a lot of folks will be voting against a candidate that they despise, rather than positively supporting a candidate that they are very optimistic about. This being the case, they are all but forced into voting for whatever candidate they believe has the best chance of defeating the target of their hatred. They may be lending their weight to a candidate whom they actively dislike, thus creating the illusion of a popular mandate.

I don’t like it.

Here’s my proposed fix. When you go to the polls, you have a choice. Either you can vote for a candidate (the way you do now) or you can vote AGAINST a candidate of your choice. You get one positive vote or one negative vote, but not both. You can choose to vote in support of a candidate you really like, or (if your only wish is to see a candidate lose/never gain office) vote against a candidate you really hate. My negative vote cancels out your positive vote, or vice versa.

The final vote tally for any candidate would be [number of positive votes] - [number of negative votes]. The electoral college would be kept the same; the electoral votes would go towards the candidate garnering the highest tally after the negative votes are subtracted (or, in dire situations, the least negative tally).

Here are some potential benefits for the system:

1) Voting would reflect level of public support (if a candidate won with a very low score, just because they were better than other candidates but not particularly good, then they would be aware of that situation)
2) Third-party candidates would stand a chance of winning (if the Big Two candidates’ voters knocked each other out)
3) More people might vote the way they want (e.g. for a third party)
4) More people might turn out at the polls, knowing that they could express frustration without having to endure the nasty feeling associated with voting for a candidate they really didn’t like.

Here are some potential risks:

1) Insane third-party candidates might win
2) The system might reflect a deep disgust with all candidates, eroding the winner’s image among the populace and undermining the winner’s authority
3) Negative voting seems like a spiteful thing to do and might raise the level of animosity in the population.

I’m willing to risk (2) but am more concerned about (1) and (3).
Of course, this system won’t be adopted anytime soon, but I’m interested to know what y’all think about it from a theoretical perspective.

Opinions?

[akrpsu]

That is a pretty good idea, but how do you ensure that a person is truthful when stating whether their vote was positive or negative. For example, say I don't like candidate X so I vote for candidate Z, couldn't I just say I was casting a positive vote for candidate Z, even though in reality I don't care for Z but really despise cadidate X? Hopefully what I am saying makes sense.

[Sarge]

I could go for that, but like you said, someone like Al Sharpton might actually win

[Ancalagon the Black]

Originally posted by akrpsu
For example, say I don't like candidate X so I vote for candidate Z, couldn't I just say I was casting a positive vote for candidate Z, even though in reality I don't care for Z but really despise cadidate X?

Of course you could. That's the way it is now. The system is designed so that you express your opinion positively or negatively. The results are captured in the final tally. You're still welcome to vote for Z as an alternative to X, but if you WANT to cast a negative vote for X, you're allowed to (but then you'll forfeit your right to vote for Z).

[chosen]

Interesting post, Ancalagon the Blizzle. Voting paradoxes are always fun.
I can see a couple of extra effects for a system like this:

1. Politics would become more centrist. It would change the strategy of campaigning, so that views expressed by candidates would be much more centrist and/or moderate and/or VAGUE (sound familiar?). Candidates wouldn't want to do things to piss off the voting public, rather garner favor more behind the scenes.

2. Smear campaigning would increase.

3. Initially, new candidates would have a big edge vis. the old system. Incumbents and known quantities would be at a loss, since they have more of a track record for the public to scrutinize and be galvanized by.

We might have some completely anonymous hack elected into office because the voters underestimated him or didn't know enough about his views to hate him. They didn't bother to vote against him, but rather only the bigger "threat" candidate. 30% vote for Bush, 28% vote against him, 15% vote for Kerry, 13% against him. That's Bush and Kerry at 2% apiece. so now someone like Nader cruises in with 4% of the popular vote? Yikes.

4. The problem is, EVENTUALLY, I think the saddest side effect to this system is that it ultimately wouldn't move power from the hands of the two parties. The two parties would eventually figure out this system, and the Republicans would calculate how big of a percentage of votes they would need to chop out from under the Democrats in order to win, and vice versa. Exactly the same as currently figuring out how much of their campaign budget to spend on advertising for them to win. Then they would just launch a concerted effort to assign certain voting blocks to "negative vote" other candidates. It's like the economic notion of prisonner's dilemma or duopoly... you don't see Coke and Pepsi shooting each other down so hard that they let RC cola in the door. No way.. they'll calculate and figure out how to work the system again while keeping their market strength.


5. Alternatively, I can also imagine a scenario where the public is flooded with candidates, since every group of yokels that considers themselves a party gets a forum for the presidential campaign. With too many candidates, information overload might cause voters to stop looking at the issues and just vote against the most unlikable candidate.

[codeorama]

I totally agree with your assesment of two crappy candidates.

I hate Bush and Kerry sucks balls too...

[Buford]

It would be nice if the Gov't had 4 or 5 legit parties.

That way 1 party would almost never be in control on the Hill and no matter who the Prez is.....he/she would just have to work with them.

Plus, it would make people start voting on issues more and less just for a party name.

But I like the idea in the 1st post here. I'd go for it. I'd do the negative vote this year.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black
Many people on this board (and in America) are dissatisfied with the options thrown up by the current electoral process. While folks still believe in democracy, they cringe at the fact that we are more often than not forced to choose between two almost equally repugnant alternatives. Some of us take a principled stand and ‘throw away our vote’ by casting our ballot for a third-party candidate. Some of us swallow hard and cast our vote for whichever of the Big Two candidates we consider to be less evil.

What with the way the USA is currently divided, it looks as though a lot of folks will be voting against a candidate that they despise, rather than positively supporting a candidate that they are very optimistic about. This being the case, they are all but forced into voting for whatever candidate they believe has the best chance of defeating the target of their hatred. They may be lending their weight to a candidate whom they actively dislike, thus creating the illusion of a popular mandate.

I don’t like it.

Here’s my proposed fix. When you go to the polls, you have a choice. Either you can vote for a candidate (the way you do now) or you can vote AGAINST a candidate of your choice. You get one positive vote or one negative vote, but not both. You can choose to vote in support of a candidate you really like, or (if your only wish is to see a candidate lose/never gain office) vote against a candidate you really hate. My negative vote cancels out your positive vote, or vice versa.

The final vote tally for any candidate would be [number of positive votes] - [number of negative votes]. The electoral college would be kept the same; the electoral votes would go towards the candidate garnering the highest tally after the negative votes are subtracted (or, in dire situations, the least negative tally).

Here are some potential benefits for the system:

1) Voting would reflect level of public support (if a candidate won with a very low score, just because they were better than other candidates but not particularly good, then they would be aware of that situation)
2) Third-party candidates would stand a chance of winning (if the Big Two candidates’ voters knocked each other out)
3) More people might vote the way they want (e.g. for a third party)
4) More people might turn out at the polls, knowing that they could express frustration without having to endure the nasty feeling associated with voting for a candidate they really didn’t like.

Here are some potential risks:

1) Insane third-party candidates might win
2) The system might reflect a deep disgust with all candidates, eroding the winner’s image among the populace and undermining the winner’s authority
3) Negative voting seems like a spiteful thing to do and might raise the level of animosity in the population.

I’m willing to risk (2) but am more concerned about (1) and (3).
Of course, this system won’t be adopted anytime soon, but I’m interested to know what y’all think about it from a theoretical perspective.

Opinions?

ATB, not a bad idea, but you'd end up with a lesser known winning all the time. Say 24% vote for Kerry 24% vote against him, the same for Bush.

Now you have 4% of the vote deciding the election. This may be split between other canidates, and you could even theoretically end up with a write in vote as winning. Just immagine, Mickey Mouse could be president of the US.

Take last election as an example. One could assume the vote in Florida would have resulted in a net zero votes for both parties due to the closeness of the race. Now, you have the get out the vote campaign for Mickey Mouse and 10,000 wacky Floridians actually vote for him. You could concievably have Mickey Mouse winning Florida (well, it is his home state :) )

I understand your reasoning and sentiment, but it could backfire in a major way, just throwing out a dissenting opinion.

[Kilmer17]

That's an interesting idea. Fun to talk about, but it couldnt work.

[Riggo-toni]

Rather than a typical primary system, Louisiana's gubernatorial elections are set up so in the first round, you vote for whomever you want. If no candidate gets a majority, the top 2 candidates run against each other in the final election. The problem is that often the moderate, sensible candidates siphon votes off each other, and the final race tends to be between undesirable extremists (ie when David Duke ran against the crook whose name I can't remember).

Let me state something here I fervently believe in. Voting for a 3rd party whose views most clearly match your own is not a wasted vote. Quite the opposite. The odds of your one vote deciding the outcome of an election are astronomical. For all the name calling and partisan bickering on this board, the fact is the only differences between Kerry and Bush are on social policies (ie abortion) which make for great posturing, but which the Prez has little to no control over. The election outcome will have little effect on the nation.
Significant shifts in policy nearly always come about as a reaction to growing 3rd parties. Politicians want to get that extra % of the vote that will put them over the top. Our budget surpluses in the 90s owe a lot to GOPers trying to win over the Perot vote, for example.
The GOP is spending our country into oblivion, and the Dems only complaint is that they aren't spending enough, or that we need to raise taxes to pay for more programs. Vote Libertarian. Until the GOP realizes that there's a significant fiscal conservative contingent out there that might abandon them, they will continue to spend like drunken sailors and exert all their energies into courting the Buchananite/Quayle social conservatives.

[Kilmer17]

2 states were decided by less than a combined 1000 votes. So YES< 1 vote can and does matter.

If you are in a state that wont be "in play" that's one thing, but anyone in FLA who votes 3rd party better realize that they are voting for Kerry, and anyone in NM who votes 3rd party is voting for Bush.

[AJWatson3]

third-party!!!! that's what it's there for!

[SkinsNumberOne]

Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black
Many people on this board (and in America) are dissatisfied with the options thrown up by the current electoral process. While folks still believe in democracy, they cringe at the fact that we are more often than not forced to choose between two almost equally repugnant alternatives. Some of us take a principled stand and ‘throw away our vote’ by casting our ballot for a third-party candidate. Some of us swallow hard and cast our vote for whichever of the Big Two candidates we consider to be less evil.

What with the way the USA is currently divided, it looks as though a lot of folks will be voting against a candidate that they despise, rather than positively supporting a candidate that they are very optimistic about. This being the case, they are all but forced into voting for whatever candidate they believe has the best chance of defeating the target of their hatred. They may be lending their weight to a candidate whom they actively dislike, thus creating the illusion of a popular mandate.

I don’t like it.

Here’s my proposed fix. When you go to the polls, you have a choice. Either you can vote for a candidate (the way you do now) or you can vote AGAINST a candidate of your choice. You get one positive vote or one negative vote, but not both. You can choose to vote in support of a candidate you really like, or (if your only wish is to see a candidate lose/never gain office) vote against a candidate you really hate. My negative vote cancels out your positive vote, or vice versa.

The final vote tally for any candidate would be [number of positive votes] - [number of negative votes]. The electoral college would be kept the same; the electoral votes would go towards the candidate garnering the highest tally after the negative votes are subtracted (or, in dire situations, the least negative tally).

Here are some potential benefits for the system:

1) Voting would reflect level of public support (if a candidate won with a very low score, just because they were better than other candidates but not particularly good, then they would be aware of that situation)
2) Third-party candidates would stand a chance of winning (if the Big Two candidates’ voters knocked each other out)
3) More people might vote the way they want (e.g. for a third party)
4) More people might turn out at the polls, knowing that they could express frustration without having to endure the nasty feeling associated with voting for a candidate they really didn’t like.

Here are some potential risks:

1) Insane third-party candidates might win
2) The system might reflect a deep disgust with all candidates, eroding the winner’s image among the populace and undermining the winner’s authority
3) Negative voting seems like a spiteful thing to do and might raise the level of animosity in the population.

I’m willing to risk (2) but am more concerned about (1) and (3).
Of course, this system won’t be adopted anytime soon, but I’m interested to know what y’all think about it from a theoretical perspective.

Opinions?
Interesting, some friends of mine and I have had discussions about different voting systems. One popular idea is weighted voting to better represent how people feel of candidates compared to other candidates. So maybe I only prefer Bush to Kerry slightly or vice versa, that could be represented in my vote rather than saying that I am 100% for one candidate over another. This also removes the "Third Party candidate stole my votes" excuse, since now you would be able to show support for multiple candidates.

This also doesn't suffer from any of the risks you listed unless I am missing something.

[akrpsu]

Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black


Of course you could. That's the way it is now. The system is designed so that you express your opinion positively or negatively. The results are captured in the final tally. You're still welcome to vote for Z as an alternative to X, but if you WANT to cast a negative vote for X, you're allowed to (but then you'll forfeit your right to vote for Z).

I got you now that makes sense to me.

[Ancalagon the Black]

Chosen,

I think you’re right in that at the beginning, third-party candidates would benefit most. Where I disagree is that in the long run, the two establishment parties would figure out a prolonged duopoly. Your game-theoretic analysis is interesting, but it misses the point that ‘assigning’ groups to vote negatively and positively proportionately would fail to have meaning if people woke up to the fact that almost everyone was dissatisfied with the parties (there would be party defection). Furthermore, people who previously hadn’t voted might be motivated to get up and vote, if only to express their dissatisfaction.

Chomerics,

The lesser-known one might not win all the time…and as I stated, that’s a risk. Also, if Mickey Mouse were president, he’d still have to work with Congress. And be subjected to checks and balances across the board.

SkinsNumberOne,

Your idea of ‘weighted’ voting is exactly what goes on in Australia (and many other parliamentary systems). It’s called ‘preferences’ here. You can express your favored party as number one, and then your favorite Big party as number two (and rank your hated party last). It’s an interesting system that does force coalitions. However, in a parliamentary system the coalition government appoints the executive (prime minister). In a presidential election, you can’t end up with a coalition. I still like the idea, though.

Riggo-toni,

Did you ever see the Simpsons Halloween episode where Kang and Kodos ran for president and were unmasked by Homer? When the population finds out that evil, murderous aliens are the two candidates, someone says, ‘Maybe I’ll vote for a third-party candidate.’ And Kodos says, ‘Go ahead – throw away your vote!’ The reaction: ‘He’s RIGHT! We have to choose between them!’ I love that scene.

[SkinsNumberOne]

Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black
SkinsNumberOne,

Your idea of ‘weighted’ voting is exactly what goes on in Australia (and many other parliamentary systems). It’s called ‘preferences’ here. You can express your favored party as number one, and then your favorite Big party as number two (and rank your hated party last). It’s an interesting system that does force coalitions. However, in a parliamentary system the coalition government appoints the executive (prime minister). In a presidential election, you can’t end up with a coalition. I still like the idea, though.

Interesting, I didn't know that. Read about it here (http://www.eca.gov.au/systems/single/by_category/preferential.htm) for any who would be interested.


Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black

Riggo-toni,

Did you ever see the Simpsons Halloween episode where Kang and Kodos ran for president and were unmasked by Homer? When the population finds out that evil, murderous aliens are the two candidates, someone says, ‘Maybe I’ll vote for a third-party candidate.’ And Kodos says, ‘Go ahead – throw away your vote!’ The reaction: ‘He’s RIGHT! We have to choose between them!’ I love that scene.
CLASSIC. "Go ahead, throw your vote away!" ... and at the end when they're slaves Homer says "Don't blame me, I voted for Kang!"

[NoCalMike]

I can't stand Bush, yet I don't really trust Kerry. It is best not to affiliate with a political party, because members of a politicial party are only interested in being elected, re-elected. They will do what needs to be done to win an election, lie, cheat, steal etc.......All it is about is winning.