Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Range Voting As an Issue

Expand Messages
  • thenewthirdparty
    Guys and Gals, I now see Range Voting as a very important component to getting third parties elected. But I don t see how the Range Voting group will ever
    Message 1 of 7 , Aug 3, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Guys and Gals,
      I now see Range Voting as a very important component to getting third parties elected. But I don't see how the Range Voting group will ever change the minds of the public in order for it to be a reality. Does someone have thoughts on how to get your Range Voting plan voted into action? I would like to hear how Range Voting moves beyond more than just a good idea.
    • WarrenS
      ... --well, it is hard... but you should look at the CES googlegroup, not here... that is more where the action is (to the extent there is action)
      Message 2 of 7 , Aug 3, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In RangeVoting@yahoogroups.com, "thenewthirdparty" <thenewthirdparty@...> wrote:
        >
        > Guys and Gals,
        > I now see Range Voting as a very important component to getting third parties elected. But I don't see how the Range Voting group will ever change the minds of the public in order for it to be a reality. Does someone have thoughts on how to get your Range Voting plan voted into action? I would like to hear how Range Voting moves beyond more than just a good idea.

        --well, it is hard... but you should look at the CES googlegroup, not here... that is more where the action is (to the extent there is action)
      • bob
        ... I think we need to start a PAC or even maybe a party that has the sole objective of getting rid of plurality voting. We need to be able to communicate
        Message 3 of 7 , Aug 4, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In RangeVoting@yahoogroups.com, "thenewthirdparty" <thenewthirdparty@...> wrote:
          >
          > Guys and Gals,
          > I now see Range Voting as a very important component to getting third parties elected. But I don't see how the Range Voting group will ever change the minds of the public in order for it to be a reality. Does someone have thoughts on how to get your Range Voting plan voted into action? I would like to hear how Range Voting moves beyond more than just a good idea.
          >

          I think we need to start a PAC or even maybe a party that has the sole objective of getting rid of plurality voting. We need to be able to communicate that competitive elections in which there is no vote splitting is the most important thing we can do to hold politicians accountable. We also need to be willing to vote for candidates who support getting rid of plurality regardless of what other positions that candidate holds. We need to communicate that once we get over this hump, we will no longer have to worry about having to vote for the lesser of two evils ever again.

          Another thing we can do is email and tweet news hosts like Rachael Maddow and ask them to do a segment on different voting systems. If we organize to tweet pundits at the same time, maybe they'll get the message.
        • Dave Ketchum
          Here I talk of moving up from FPP to Range or Condorcet. I do not get into other single-winner elections or into multi-winner elections - while such deserve
          Message 4 of 7 , Aug 4, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            Here I talk of moving up from FPP to Range or Condorcet. I do not get
            into other single-winner elections or into multi-winner elections -
            while such deserve considering, they distract from my primary goal,
            which is to promote moving upward without getting buried in details.

            Voters should see advantages in moving up to a better method.

            To vote for one, as in FPP:
            . In Range, assign your choice a maximum rating.
            . In Condorcet, simply rank your choice.

            Voting for two is using more power than FPP offers. Often there is a
            major pair of candidates for which you prefer one, and one other that
            you also want to vote for: For your second choice you could give the
            same rank or rating, or lower:
            . In Range you assign first choice maximum rating. Unrated share
            minimum. The farther you rate second below max, the stronger your
            vote for max over second. BUT, the nearer you rate second to unrated,
            the weaker you rate second over unrated.
            . In Condorcet, rank your first choice higher than your second.

            Voting for more is doable:
            . In Range your difference in rating between any two is how much
            you prefer the higher over the lower, and the sum of these differences
            decides which wins their race.
            . In Condorcet they count how many rank A>B vs how many rank B>A.

            Politicians may hesitate in moving up to more powerful methods. Range
            or Condorcet can cost more, but getting a truer reading as to voter
            choices can be worth the pain.

            Dave Ketchum

            On Aug 4, 2011, at 3:20 AM, bob wrote:
            >
            > --- In RangeVoting@yahoogroups.com, "thenewthirdparty"
            > <thenewthirdparty@...> wrote:
            >>
            >> Guys and Gals,
            >> I now see Range Voting as a very important component to getting
            >> third parties elected. But I don't see how the Range Voting group
            >> will ever change the minds of the public in order for it to be a
            >> reality. Does someone have thoughts on how to get your Range
            >> Voting plan voted into action? I would like to hear how Range
            >> Voting moves beyond more than just a good idea.
            >>
            >
            > I think we need to start a PAC or even maybe a party that has the
            > sole objective of getting rid of plurality voting. We need to be
            > able to communicate that competitive elections in which there is no
            > vote splitting is the most important thing we can do to hold
            > politicians accountable. We also need to be willing to vote for
            > candidates who support getting rid of plurality regardless of what
            > other positions that candidate holds. We need to communicate that
            > once we get over this hump, we will no longer have to worry about
            > having to vote for the lesser of two evils ever again.
            >
            > Another thing we can do is email and tweet news hosts like Rachael
            > Maddow and ask them to do a segment on different voting systems. If
            > we organize to tweet pundits at the same time, maybe they'll get the
            > message.
          • bob
            Ideally, I d prefer the Condorcet method, but I think approval voting is the best way to get our foot in door. It is the easiest to explain and implement and
            Message 5 of 7 , Aug 5, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              Ideally, I'd prefer the Condorcet method, but I think approval voting is the best way to get our foot in door. It is the easiest to explain and implement and it will be the easiest transition from plurality for voters.

              Approval voting may not be the best method, but it is good enough and it is our best bet to get something through.


              --- In RangeVoting@yahoogroups.com, Dave Ketchum <davek@...> wrote:
              > Politicians may hesitate in moving up to more powerful methods. Range
              > or Condorcet can cost more, but getting a truer reading as to voter
              > choices can be worth the pain.
            • Jameson Quinn
              2011/8/5 bob ... Agreed. ... Yes. ... Well, not quite. SODA would be even easier. But we are certainly not going to all agree on SODA
              Message 6 of 7 , Aug 5, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                2011/8/5 bob <elfstone50@...>

                > **
                >
                >
                > Ideally, I'd prefer the Condorcet method, but I think approval voting is
                > the best way to get our foot in door.
                >
                Agreed.

                > It is the easiest to explain and implement
                >
                Yes.

                > and it will be the easiest transition from plurality for voters.
                >
                Well, not quite. SODA would be even easier. But we are certainly not going
                to all agree on SODA tomorrow, while I think we could get more agreement on
                Approval.

                >
                > Approval voting may not be the best method, but it is good enough and it is
                > our best bet to get something through.
                >
                Well put.

                JQ


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • WarrenS
                where is the SODA web page? You should add it as a link to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RangeVoting/links
                Message 7 of 7 , Aug 7, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  where is the SODA web page?

                  You should add it as a link to
                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RangeVoting/links
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.