Voting System

[Joynewyeary]

Citizens for Approval Voting has an alternative to the existing system that is used in political elections.

The idea is to take away the incentive for strategic voting and give you the risk free option of voting for your highest ideal.

For a lot more info, look here:

http://www.approvalvoting.org/

Any comments? Any better ideas?

[jrs]

I am not familiar with this group, but I support approval voting.

I believe that the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) which publishes the most important American journal about science "SCIENCE" has endorsed it and uses it.

[JMeganSnow]

I looked at the site a bit, and I have some questions/comments.

First; is the purpose of voting to determine which candidate is the most "acceptable?" I think no; you are not voting and should not vote for selected policies, that being the result of approval voting. You need to vote for a candidate, taking into account his policies, integrity, political record, staff picks, etc. Only one man will win a particular political position.

Approval voting looks like the attempt to declare that politicians are interchangeable parts, which is ludicrous. The only way to prevent this would be to rate how much you "approve" of a particular politician, and why, which would take REAMS of paper and a supercomputer to calculate.

WAIT! This is the process I undertake in my own head when I select a single candidate! So, what this approval voting REALLY comes down to is an effort to permit people not to evaluate their ideas, to have some outside party DO YOUR THINKING FOR YOU. You only have to get it down to, "well, I sort of approve of these guys" instead of, "This particular one, in my final judgement, is the best." I expect the end result of this method of thinking will be that you won't even "approve" of a particular candidate any more, you'll just "approve" of a party (after all, that would be even more efficient!), and as the parties become more and more bland and mainstream to increase their "approval" rating, they'll eventually merge and you'll have any other country with one-party politics.

The "voting" would be "do you approve of the existence of government?" at that point.

NO THANK YOU!

The question of "efficiency" is a non sequitur; it would be more "efficient" if human beings were like ants and all worked mindlessly towards some centrally-determined goal. If your efficiency is a metaphysical contradiction (that a mathematical calculation can decide what you think better than you can) it doesn't matter one way or the other.

Oh, and SCIENCE is liberal-biased; they have recently refused to publish any anti-global-warming research, so I'd think twice about anything they have to say. In fact, I would hardly be surprised to discover that "approval" voting results in a massive benefit for liberals. Not surprised, anyway, I couldn't say for sure until I could see the results of a sample vote conducted at the same time and with the same candidates as an actual vote.

[Joynewyeary]

Only one man will win a particular political position.

Your statement is true, but what is the significance of your statement? Is there some reason that an individual voter should be treated as though he or she were making the decision that will come out of the voting process?

Approval voting looks like the attempt to declare that politicians are interchangeable parts, which is ludicrous. 

Consider a system that allows you to select only one candidate. Does such a system declare that all the candidates you didn't vote for are interchangeable?

So, what this approval voting REALLY comes down to is an effort to permit people not to evaluate their ideas, to have some outside party DO YOUR THINKING FOR YOU.  You only have to get it down to, "well, I sort of approve of these guys" instead of, "This particular one, in my final judgement, is the best." 

Currently, many people do not vote for the candidate who is, in their judgment, the best. At the ballot box, they can express approval of only one candidate and they are afraid that a particular candidate whom they disapprove of will be elected. So instead of voting for the best, they vote for the least evil among those who seem most likely to win.

[JMeganSnow]

Your statement is true, but what is the significance of your statement?  Is there some reason that an individual voter should be treated as though he or she were making the decision that will come out of the voting process?

Yes, as I stated; to do anything else is an attempt to let some third party make your decisions for you.

Consider a system that allows you to select only one candidate.  Does such a system declare that all the candidates you didn't vote for are interchangeable?

As far as you are concerned, yes, the candidates you didn't vote for are interchangeable; you don't want any of them. Approval voting declares that the candidates you DID vote for are all interchangeable.

Currently, many people do not vote for the candidate who is, in their judgment, the best.  At the ballot box, they can express approval of only one candidate and they are afraid that a particular candidate whom they disapprove of will be elected.  So instead of voting for the best, they vote for the least evil among those who seem most likely to win.

And, the solution to the fact that candidates nowadays are of poor quality is to have people vote for everyone they think is somewhat good? In the realm of weighing grays against each other, least evil = most good. It is wise to vote for politicians that you think have a chance to win, also; this means they actually have a chance at implementing their policies as well.

I would have to see a statistical analysis of the actual results of this voting method before I could absolutely say whether it was functionally bad, however, working just off what I picked up from this site I would have to say that it smacks of an attempt to avoid direct responsibility for an outcome, and nothing good ever comes of that.

[DavidV]

Any comments?  Any better ideas?

Yes, restrict voting rights to a natural aristocracy, such as wealthy landowners, preferably around 5-10% of the population.

[jrs]

I wish that people did not have to vote at all. It would be so much nicer if each person simply controlled his own person and property.

But criminals exist and even innocent people make mistakes, so such a utopia is not an option. Tyranny and oligarchy have been tried many times and found wanting.

Voting for our leaders is a ritual substitute for civil war. Any such ritual substitute must involve compromise. So arguing against a voting system on the ground that it forces you to compromise is wrong.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Why switch from the existing system to approval voting?

The problem we are trying to avoid is SOPHISTICATED VOTING or the bandwagon effect. Voters can often get a better result in an election by voting in a way which misrepresents their true desires.

SOPHISTICATED VOTING is a problem because it could result in the following kind of situation: There might be a field of three or more candidates including Alice, Bob, and Chuck. The media might convince the voters that only Bob and Chuck have a serious chance of winning. So voters who prefer Bob to Chuck will vote for Bob, even if they would like Alice more. Likewise, voters who prefer Chuck to Bob will vote for Chuck, even if they would prefer Alice to Chuck. So Alice might end up losing even though she could be the favorite of a clear majority of the voters.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Approval voting is a very simple system, even slightly simpler than the existing system.

In Approval Voting, a voter can vote for as many or as few of the candidates for an office as he pleases, but can cast at most one vote for any particular candidate. Thus if there were 5 candidates for mayor, there would be 32 ways you could cast your vote with respect to mayor. Whereas under the usual system where you can vote for at most one candidate for the office, there would be only 6 ways you could cast your vote.

The candidate who received the most votes would win regardless of whether that represented a majority of the voters or whether any other candidate also received a majority. If there was a tie, then one of the candidates with the most votes would be selected randomly.

Primary elections and run-offs would be eliminated. In effect, they would be consolidated into the general election.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Under approval voting, the rational way to vote would be to vote for those candidates whom you prefer to the expected (average) outcome of the election.

Approval voting is clearly superior to the current system and most other systems which have been proposed. And it would be simple to implement, just remove the restriction which says "VOTE FOR NO MORE THAN ONE". Approval voting is easy to tabulate because you only need to keep a running total of YES votes for each candidate as you scan thru the ballots in a single pass.

[JMeganSnow]

Why switch from the existing system to approval voting?

The problem we are trying to avoid is SOPHISTICATED VOTING or the bandwagon effect. Voters can often get a better result in an election by voting in a way which misrepresents their true desires.

Better result by what standard?

[EC]

Yes. Only allow people to vote who pass a relatively high level of intelliegience and basic civics test.

[JMeganSnow]

Oh, I realized a comical thing about approval voting, also. The more candidates you vote for the less your vote means.

If you vote for ALL the candidates the result is the same as though you never voted. If you vote for all but ONE of the candidates the playing field is still pretty much level. It is the people who vote for the fewest candidates who will wind up determining the results of the voting. So, your best bet is STILL to vote for ONLY ONE CANDIDATE.

[jrs]

Voters can often get a better result in an election by voting in a way which misrepresents their true desires.

Better result by what standard?

Better by the subjective standard of the voter's desires, since that is what motivates him and determines how he will vote.

This may not be the same as what is objectively in his interest, but that is not what I am discussing. It would be impossible (and immoral even if it were possible) to have the voting system substitute an objectively correct choice for the voter's subjective choice.

For example, the voter might prefer Alice to Bob and either of them to Chuck. But if the voter believes that Alice does not have a chance of winning, then under the current system the voter would probably vote:

Alice NO; Bob YES; Chuck NO.

Under approval voting, the voter would vote:

Alice YES; Bob YES; Chuck NO.

This would more accurately represent the voter's desires and increase his chance of getting what he wants, i.e. Alice.

Yes. Only allow people to vote who pass a relatively high level of intelligence and basic civics test.

If the test is objective, this would result in a more competent electorate and thus hopefully a better outcome of the election.

However, it would defeat the purpose of having elections which is to prevent civil war. The disenfranchised people would riot and fight against the government.

So what is your choice: an aristocratic government of an unruly country or a low-brow government of a peaceful country?

It is the people who vote for the fewest candidates who will wind up determining the results of the voting. So, your best bet is STILL to vote for ONLY ONE CANDIDATE.

As I said before, under approval voting, the rational way to vote would be to vote for those candidates whom you prefer to the expected (average) outcome of the election.

This will usually result in voting for ABOUT HALF of the candidates, not just one candidate.

[Strangelove]

If I understand correctly, most Americans are opposed to "tests" to determine the worth of a voter since historically they were used to restrict the voting rights of African Americans with racist intent.

With regards to the proposed approval rating system, it would be a good thing should any Objectivist wish to run as a third party candidate since this would allow for more people to be open with voting for that third party since thye dont believe that it threatens the status quo of the two party system.

[JMeganSnow]

Better by the subjective standard of the voter's desires, since that is what motivates him and determines how he will vote.

So, people just vote on whim, without reference to any objective standard whatsoever? Thbbbt. Some people may, but they don't decide elections anyway.

[jrs]

Voters can often get a better result in an election by voting in a way which misrepresents their true desires.

Better result by what standard?

Better by the subjective standard of the voter's desires, since that is what motivates him and determines how he will vote.

So, people just vote on whim, without reference to any objective standard whatsoever?

Well Jennifer, you have nicely set up a straw-man and shot him down.

I did not tell people to decide to vote based on whim rather than reason. People can and should decide based on what is objectively in their interest to the extent that they are able to understand that.

I was using "desire" to mean what it means in ordinary language, i.e. whatever the voter decides for whatever reason. It is his responsibility to make that decision rationally, not mine to do it for him.