Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 6th Nov 2012 11:37 UTC
In the News "This election won't hinge on technology issues. Just look at prevailing discussions this year at the national level: major candidates have sparred over Iran's nuclear ambitions, the role of government, inane comments on the female body, and to nobody's surprise, the economy. Despite that fact, many decisions will be taken up by the next US president and those in Congress that will affect the world of tech, and by consequence, the real lives of citizens and human beings around the world - from alternative energy, to the use of killer drones, the regulation of wireless spectrum, and policies that aim to control content on the internet. Your chance to vote is just around the corner. Here's what's at stake in tech this election, and how the major candidates could influence our future." Happy voting, American readers. Whatever you pick, please take at least a few minutes to consider that the implications of your choice do not end at the US border.
Thread beginning with comment 541201
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: Comment by shmerl
by Alfman on Wed 7th Nov 2012 00:18 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by shmerl"
Alfman
Member since:
2011-01-28

kenji,

"What's the point of doing that when it will not affect the outcome, even if the vote was entirely based and popular votes and the Electoral College was dissolved?"

http://www.chacha.com/question/what-three-elections-did-the-elector...

"The electoral college and popular vote differed when the Hayes/Tilden election of 1876, The Harrison/Cleveland election of 1888, and also occured in the 2000 presidential election, where George W. Bush received fewer popular votes than Albert Gore Jr., but received a majority of electoral votes."

It's been rare, but it means the majority lost with Bush. I think there's another disadvantage to electoral voting - independent parties get ZERO representation in the final election tally instead of getting what they deserve. Absolving the electoral college might cause a behavioural shift in voters who collectively avoid voting independent because they plainly see that independents always get zero representation in the end.

Let me ask you, if you detest party A's policies, do you vote for party B who has the best chance of defeating party A? Or do you vote for party C who has no chance of winning in your states electoral vote AND increasing the odds of party A winning?

This is not rhetorical, I really want you to answer it. Voters face the same conundrum at the polls. Rank voting is a superior method of voting because it encourages people to vote for who they want, and not just who can win.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[9]: Comment by shmerl
by kenji on Wed 7th Nov 2012 00:42 in reply to "RE[8]: Comment by shmerl"
kenji Member since:
2009-04-08

Let me ask you, if you detest party A's policies, do you vote for party B who has the best chance of defeating party A? Or do you vote for party C who has no chance of winning in your states electoral vote AND increasing the odds of party A winning?

This is not rhetorical, I really want you to answer it. Voters face the same conundrum at the polls. Rank voting is a superior method of voting because it encourages people to vote for who they want, and not just who can win.


I do not vote for third parties because it is futile. That is the nature of politics in the USA. I also generally do not vote against things, I vote for them. Don't assume that all Americans are full of hate and tend to vote against the 'other guy' over voting for 'their guy'. It happens for sure, especially in this election but it isn't a constant.

Anyway third parties will never gain traction unless the entire system is rebuilt from the ground up. Congress is deadlocked with two parties and two agendas. Imagine the chaos of multiple parties and agendas.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[10]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Wed 7th Nov 2012 01:56 in reply to "RE[9]: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

You see, you yourself admit that the system isn't healthy, since third parties can't even gain any traction. Electoral college is part of what prevents it.

The argument of deadlock doesn't justify the current stagnation of 2 parties which don't represent the interests of many, while people can't really squeeze in any alternative because of the current system.

Sergey Brin even thinks that removing all parties is a good idea:

http://techcrunch.com/2012/11/06/google-co-founder-brin-calls-on-po...

While this might not be practical, however his characteristic of the current system problems is very to the point.

Edited 2012-11-07 01:59 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[10]: Comment by shmerl
by Alfman on Wed 7th Nov 2012 05:55 in reply to "RE[9]: Comment by shmerl"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

kenji,

I appreciate your answer!

"I do not vote for third parties because it is futile. That is the nature of politics in the USA."

Agreed, I think that's a big part of the problem.

"I also generally do not vote against things, I vote for them."

Fair enough, I guess you don't have this dilemma personally. But what of voters who aren't represented by the two party system? They cannot "vote *for* things" and "not vote for third parties" at the same time, they have to break one of your rules.

"Don't assume that all Americans are full of hate and tend to vote against the 'other guy' over voting for 'their guy'. It happens for sure, especially in this election but it isn't a constant."

That's not really what I meant. Consider that the green party aligns better with the democratic party than the republican party. If too many people vote green, it will split the democratic vote. Consequently republicans would win, but they are further from green party ideals than democrates are. Therefore voting for who you want can be detrimental to your cause. This is a terrible property of the US voting system. Many of us propose rank voting as a much better alternative.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[10]: Comment by shmerl
by demetrioussharpe on Thu 8th Nov 2012 14:39 in reply to "RE[9]: Comment by shmerl"
demetrioussharpe Member since:
2009-01-09

"Let me ask you, if you detest party A's policies, do you vote for party B who has the best chance of defeating party A? Or do you vote for party C who has no chance of winning in your states electoral vote AND increasing the odds of party A winning?

This is not rhetorical, I really want you to answer it. Voters face the same conundrum at the polls. Rank voting is a superior method of voting because it encourages people to vote for who they want, and not just who can win.


I do not vote for third parties because it is futile. That is the nature of politics in the USA. I also generally do not vote against things, I vote for them. Don't assume that all Americans are full of hate and tend to vote against the 'other guy' over voting for 'their guy'. It happens for sure, especially in this election but it isn't a constant.

Anyway third parties will never gain traction unless the entire system is rebuilt from the ground up. Congress is deadlocked with two parties and two agendas. Imagine the chaos of multiple parties and agendas.
"

Today's as good a day as any other day for them to get started on rebuilding the system. But they won't do that unless we force them to.

Reply Parent Score: 1