h a l f b a k e r yAmbivalent? Are you sure?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
In canada. The conservatives have continued win election
despite more people in our country being liberal and vocally
complaining about our PM.
I believe the reason an conservatives tend to win is we have
2 liberal parties and 1 conservative so the liberal vote is
divided and thus can't stand
a chance.
I think one solution to thus problem would be for voters to
have an anyone but___ voting option, in which case there
vote would count as a negative vote against the person or
party they despise.
Negative Vote
Negative_20vote
Halfbaked fourteen years ago. Some fascinating annotations. [tatterdemalion, Oct 03 2014]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
[bob]. I like it, and I voted for it, but will you please get it out of other:general and into a category deserving of it? Thanks. |
|
| |
Yes, [other:general] with lack of caps in the title is someone else's trademarked MO. |
|
| |
I like the idea, though. Kind of like an anti-vote that annihilates an opposing vote. |
|
| |
In our last gubernatorial election Maine ended up with a
self-serving Republican thug because a Democrat and three
independants ran on very similar tickets. I'm all for this
idea. [+] |
|
| |
So wait… Why don't the two liberal parties unify for the
common good? Seems to me that the real problem is that
they're really all more interested in attaining power for
themselves than any actual ideology or public benefit.
Sounds like you're getting exactly the politicians you
deserve. |
|
| |
Anyway, the “solution” is instant-runoff voting. [-] |
|
| |
I like it and what [normzone] said. Bun in a different
category. (like the link of Negative Vote) |
|
| |
Another solution would be for the liberals to be a bit more
conservative and agree in advance on one of two parties. |
|
| |
We did that in Bet Shemesh, and lost by only a few hundred
dead people that voted for the ultra-orthodox party. |
|
| |
So two libs and a con walk into a bar. And the libs say serve us anything you like, but not what he's having. |
|
| |
The con says "beer me", so the libs got wine. And were mad they could buy ___( Fill in your favorite Canadian beer.) |
|
| |
( IS this a sexist joke? Is it A joke? ) |
|
| |
Yes politics embodies the greatest struggles of mankind. I would never vote conservative, unless looking as if the mass uses ideologues in a mechanistic way, especially since the current prime minister has been working against liberal progresses, and strengthening ties to monarchy etc. but most worrying is his antisociology. Of course it is not likely nietzschean, his against christian morality, and positivism for example of the social darwinists. The prime minister's position comes in the wake of neoliberal 'socio-denialists', a worrying trend. |
|
| |
I don't think this really solve the problem with
three major parties with two being similar. Lets
say that the voters are 40% conservative and 60%
liberal with a close race between the two liberal
parties. Without the negative vote, the results
are 40%, 30% and 30%. In order for a liberal to win
using negative votes, more than one third of the
liberals (>20% of total voters) need to use their
negative votes to get a result of (40%-20%), 20%,
and 20%. If the conservative/liberal split is closer
(say 46%, 27%, 27%), then 70% of liberals (38% of all
voters) need to use negative votes. |
|
| |
But how do you decide whether to use your
negative vote? Obviously there will be some
liberals who don't really care too much which
liberal is elected so they will use negative votes,
but assuming that there are enough that care
you'd almost have to look at preliminary polls then
make an agreement between the two liberal
candidates to tell their supporters that for this
election, everyone with birthdays in a certain
range should use their negative vote and the rest
should vote for their preferred candidate. Of
course then the conservatives might realize that if
they lie in opinion polls to say they are liberal,
then the liberals will allocate fewer votes to voting
down conservatives, so at the actual election
there won't be enough negative votes. |
|
| |
I'll vote against an idea that causes the best voting
choice to be based on game theory. I agree with
an instant runoff system. |
|
| |
In Australia they use the preference system where you label
all of the candidates on the ballot paper in your order of
preference. If there are 8 candidates, mark your favourite
"1" your most hated "8" then the rest in between. No voting
system can ever be perfect and this system allows some
pretty wacky minor parties to get in as the majors hand out
"how to vote" cards placing each other last and the weirdos
come up the middle. |
|
| |
In Australia they use the preference system where you label
all of the candidates on the ballot paper in your order of
preference. If there are 8 candidates, mark your favourite
"1" your most hated "8" then the rest in between. No voting
system can ever be perfect and this system allows some
pretty wacky minor parties to get in as the majors hand out
"how to vote" cards placing each other last and the weirdos
come up the middle. |
|
| |
I'm all for trying weirdos running the government. Look what's happened letting everybody else do it. |
|
| |
Speaking of weirdos, [bob] has not responded to requests to give this idea a category home. |
|
| |
I'm not. We already had Texans who made a good mess of things. |
|
| |
alternative vote (AV) does this better with multiple candidates.. I (think) that's just my name for what ytk / scad / & AusCan said |
|
| |
also known as - transferable vote / (single seat) ranked choice voting (RCV) / preferential voting / instant-runoff voting (IRV) |
|
| |
would be my favourite system for MPs but not for the house of lords if we ever replaced it.. |
|
| |
the 2nd house should function as a jury to say "yeah ok" or "hang on a bit we don't think that's a good idea" for any legislation the 1st house tries to pass |
|
| |
so I'd prefer some form of proportional representation for any replacement for the lords.. or even better, actually make it a jury, so if you decide on 100 seats in your new replacement lords you throw the names of every eligible registered voter into a (very big) hat give it a good shake & pull 25 random names out of it each year then have them serve a 4 year term |
|
| |
this way the lords is a random or supposedly representative sample of the population being used as a poll to say yes or no to any new legislation so the only way parliament should be allowed to push anything through without their say so should be with a referendum |
|
| |
you should maybe retain the law lords to provide legal advice to them but the rest of the old codgers can be thrown out |
|
| |
I'd like to see the PM decoupled from party seats as well with an entirely separate presidential style vote - I'd like to see AV used for that too |
|
| |
Damn. I was about to propose unvoting, but I've been beaten to it by a mere five years. |
|
| |
Drew buns and bones on my ballot paper. |
|
| |
Did you take your own wax crayon ? |
|
| |
The [linked] idea is in the category Public: Voting: Negative,
which is more specific than the category this one's in
(Public: Voting). I think this idea belongs in the same
category as the [linked] one, as it's pretty much the same
idea. |
|
| |
Maybe there should be a vote on that... |
|
| |