[Lauv Keiko]

Originally Posted by Coda

Coda... Coda?

Coda coda!

... coda coda coda. x.x

¤ ¤¤ ¤¤ ¤¤ ¤¤ ¤¤ ¤¤ ¤¤ ¤


omg.. this made me laugh! xD


***

"that is, if everyone agrees that X is better than Y, the voting system should favor X over Y as well"

>> so in other words, biased?
¤ ¤¤ ¤¤ ¤¤ ¤¤ ¤¤ ¤¤ ¤¤ ¤

[Coda]

No, UNbiased. The voting system should make sure the results reflect the preferences of the voters. If the voters prefer X over Y, the results should reflect that -- if everyone likes X more, the results should never let Y win.

[Lauv Keiko]

¤ ¤¤ ¤¤ ¤¤ ¤¤ ¤¤ ¤¤ ¤¤ ¤


in the elections though, X did win, right?

¤ ¤¤ ¤¤ ¤¤ ¤¤ ¤¤ ¤¤ ¤¤ ¤

[Coda]

Yes, but that's beside the point. There were only (practically speaking) two candidates who could receive votes. All voting systems behave the same way when there are only two candidates.

The point here is that single-vote ballots prevent a third-party candidate from having a chance at all, which is why there WERE only two possible outcomes to this election.

Suppose instead of just Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, Joseph Schmo was also on the ballot. Mr. Schmo has the same platform as Obama with regards to social issues, but he has a unique fiscal platform that doesn't align with either of the other platforms.

Most voters who like Mr. Schmo say that if Joseph can't win, they'd rather see Obama win than Romney.

In a single-vote ballot, unless Mr. Schmo can gather enough votes to win outright, every vote for Schmo is a vote that isn't going to Obama, so the social-liberal demographic is divided among two candidates while the social-conservative demographic is unified under Romney. So if 35% of the population votes for Obama, 25% of the population votes for Schmo, and 40% of the population votes for Romney, Romney wins, despite the fact that 60% of the population would rather see Obama win than Romney.

This means that third party candidates are better off supporting one of the two major candidates and then working from outside the system (as lobbyists) to ask their preferred candidate to consider their agenda.

A ranked-preference system such as IRV or pairwise gives third-party candidates a chance.

Let's look at IRV: In the previous example, if everyone who voted Schmo ranked it as "1. Schmo, 2. Obama, 3. Romney", then Schmo would still lose (getting 25% of the vote means he would get ejected in the first round of instant runoffs), but Obama would win in the end -- there's no paradox here where a vote for your most preferred candidate ends up with your least preferred candidate winning.

But here's the thing: It means that Schmo doesn't have a reason not to run, so he can TRY.

And if those numbers were slightly different -- say 31% voted for Schmo and 29% voted for Obama -- then Schmo would win, because that's still 60% of the population that doesn't want Romney.

[Poggio]

So now it seems my state is trying to succeed from the union once more as is majority of the south. u.u If that happens I will try my damnedest to migrate back north.

[Tiva]

..... Most of the Southern states are not able to succeed because they signed that they would not try to succeed after the Civil War..

Holy shit at the number of people voting to let Texas Succeed from the union...

[Poggio]

I figured but evidently there are petitions.
XD my thing is why don't they sponsor a back to Europe movement like Marcus Garveys back to Africa movement.

[Coda]

Not QUITE true. The Supreme Court ruled that states cannot secede unilaterally -- that is, they can't just break off and say "hey, screw you, US federal government, we're our own country now." They have to get approval from Congress to do so, but it IS possible.

That said, Congress is highly unlikely to approve it.

[Tiva]

79 thousand signatures to let Texas Succeed fron the Union... That is the most popular at the moment.

[Coda]

For the record: it's "secede", not "succeed."

Obama is definitely going to have to make a response to the petition, but it's almost certainly going to be something along the lines of "I don't want to see this country break apart, and I'm here to work with the states and listen to the voice of the people."

[Poggio]

So has any one that signed those petitions actually thought out what it means to be its own nation? If something happens to texas, they will no longer get federal funding. The state already controls most of its laws so I don't see why they want to secede from the union.

[Tiva]

My phone is correcting it... apparently it doesn't like that word......

I just think that people need to suck it up and get over it. Obama is here for another 4 years, if we were to leave it would destroy the US due to the outstanding debt that the states left would have to support or if split would crush the newly formed countries...

[Poggio]

XD yeah I am sure the people haven't thought about how bad Europe is doing now, considering they are all independent nations. I am sure the US would start having importation taxes and tariffs. Or how it would muck up gas prices, or how you would need a passport to travel from one state to another. Not to mention how the government would run, making its own constitution and making sure every one got rights and what not.

[Tiva]

If, If it does happen I believe that most people who are unhappy will move to that area and then if more than one state agrees become a Union so they aren't all different countries. I would state that most of the states are in the Southern Area (Minus New York, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Utah) and they are farmed out.. we would have a problem feeding both nations...

[Coda]

What we're seeing is a case for a traditional conservative plank: reduce the scope of the federal government and give more power to the states, reserving the power of federal law to ensure that the states' laws meet some certain minimum criteria, such as fairness and justness.

Modern radical conservatives on the other hand no longer hold this plank as central to the concept of being conservative. Both parties want to use the power of the federal government to further their own ends; the Republicans may SAY they support states' rights but they're perfectly happy to rally for laws -- or even constitutional amendments -- that would prohibit the states from making their own decisions on such matters as marriage and drugs.

[Alpha]

Unfortunately, this is true. However, that is why such groups as the Tea Party arose in the first place, with emphasis being more to a return on the core of what conservatism really is: limited federal government, with majority of "power" being held by the states themselves. There are individuals, be they in small number, within the Republican Party that hold onto this, but they get drowned out by the majority.

If we really started seeing secession again, it would end up in one of two ways: 1) another Civil War, 2) United States under Articles of Confederation.