Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

"Cumulative Voting" Method Gaining Attention

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the vote-early-and-often dept.

Politics 375

Local ID10T writes "The AP reports on a system of voting, called 'cumulative voting,' which was just used under court order in Port Chester, NY. Under this system, voters can apportion their votes as they wish — all to one candidate, one to each candidate, or any combination. The system, which has been used in Alabama, Illinois, South Dakota, Texas, and New York, allows a political minority to gain representation if it organizes behind specific candidates. Courts are increasingly mandating cumulative voting when they deem it necessary to provide fair representation." Wikipedia notes that cumulative voting "was used to elect the Illinois House of Representatives from 1870 until its repeal in 1980," without saying why the system was abandoned.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Sigh... (4, Informative)

Antony-Kyre (807195) | more than 4 years ago | (#32630718)

This one has flaws too, but at least it's better than FPTP hopefully.

Some important things regarding the flaw of this voting method...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulative_voting#Voting_systems_criteria [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulative_voting#Tactical_voting [wikipedia.org]

The Illinois experience (4, Interesting)

PapayaSF (721268) | more than 4 years ago | (#32630774)

Here's a 1976 article on cumulative voting in Illinois [niu.edu] . The writer saw it as promoting intraparty strife (creating more competition between candidates of the same party than with the candidates of the other party) and was hard for voters to understand.

Re:The Illinois experience (5, Insightful)

Timmmm (636430) | more than 4 years ago | (#32630884)

and was hard for voters to understand.

Is there any alternative voting system which isn't "hard for voters to understand"? Of all the weaselly excuses to keep FPTP that is the lamest.

Seriously. If you can't understand this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cumballot.gif [wikipedia.org]

then maybe you shouldn't be voting.

Re:The Illinois experience (5, Funny)

Winckle (870180) | more than 4 years ago | (#32630960)

That's quite an unfortunate filename.

Re:The Illinois experience (2, Insightful)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#32630966)

Someone clearly thinks it's hard to understand - they revised the diagram.

And now it's more confusing. Would my vote be invalid if I put my red mark for Mary Hill in column one or two?

Re:The Illinois experience (0, Offtopic)

dominious (1077089) | more than 4 years ago | (#32631134)

what is this cum ballot you speak of?

Re:The Illinois experience (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 4 years ago | (#32631136)

So you mean it require people to not think monolithicly as a party and required voters to thik a bit more ? These are advantages if you ask me.

Re:Sigh... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32630778)

This one has flaws too, but at least it's better than FPTP hopefully.

It's not good enough. We have the technology to run a democracy right now. Anything less is tyranny.

Re:Sigh... (4, Insightful)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 4 years ago | (#32630986)

This one has flaws too, but at least it's better than FPTP hopefully.

It's not good enough. We have the technology to run a democracy right now. Anything less is tyranny.

Better take a look at past attempts at democracies, like ancient Greece. Pure democracies fail as soon as people realize they can vote themselves free stuff. That's part of the problem the US is having currently as ~46% (and growing rapidly) of US citizens pay no federal income taxes, so voting for more/larger entitlements doesn't cost them anything.

These expansions in government give more & more power to those in government, thus giving them incentive to keep the feedback loop going until the system crashes.

You want to destroy a country? Make it a democracy. A democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

Strat

Re:Sigh... (1, Informative)

ThePhilips (752041) | more than 4 years ago | (#32631066)

You want to destroy a country? Make it a democracy. A democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

-- Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill

Re:Sigh... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32630818)

More bullshit from the JEWS...

"Courts are increasingly mandating cumulative voting when they deem it necessary to provide fair representation."

In other words, "fair representation" means non-whites lording it over white people.

There is only ONE secure voting system, The Robinson Voting Method.

http://paul-robinson.us/index.php?blog=5&title=the_robinson_method_a_really_simple_way_&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

(Cue dumbass comments from Slashdotters who are too stupid to even understand the simplest voting method ever invented.)

Re:Sigh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32630834)

What if people who want to cheat - come and put in weights of their own? In that case, how different is it from the basic paper ballot?

Re:Sigh... (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 4 years ago | (#32630882)

In other words, "fair representation" means non-whites lording it over white people.

So, you believe it's right that 51% of the people can have 100% of the representation.

There is only ONE secure voting system, The Robinson Voting Method.

Apart from the way it's counted, how is this different from first past the post?

Re:Sigh... (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 4 years ago | (#32630840)

But everything's better than FPTP. It seems strange to consider alternatives and choose one of the more flawed versions.

Re:Sigh... (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#32630930)

There is a way more significant flaw: You still vote for other life-forms (in this case humans)!

Call me crass, but I see natural selection as the fundamental driving force behind the outcome of everything, and hence the judgment on the quality of a behavior or decision.
If that is true, (which I am very sure it is), then a life-form either (directly or sometimes very indirectly) works solely for its own interests, or will die out pretty quickly. Especially when the resources must be fought for.
Of course this seems pretty strange, when looking at people like Mother Theresa. But only if you don’t consider mindsets/ideas/philosophies another level of existence. (On the level of societies.) If you do accept it, after seeing how they behave exactly like life-forms, fighting, growing, dying, using resources and transforming them, then it becomes clear that what happens to Mother Theresa’s body was not important, since a mindset tried to survive here. (Which is just as good. [Disclaimer: I’m interested in both levels, and hence can understand her.])

But following from the above, it is clear that if you choose other life-forms to rule in your name, it is not very likely that they will also represent your interests if you happen to disagree. Simply because they are life-forms.
This is not bad or good. It just is how it is.

Which means, that any system, democracy (trough a representation that somehow never represents your interests) just as well as communism (trough a interim government that somehow never ends), can not work how you expect it to work (shaping the community according your interests).

In tribal times, you were only 20-50 people. So this was a non-issue. You sat in the village center and resolved the differences. If not, you split and created your own village.
In the last couple of thousand years, there was not much choice. If you had a choice at all, and were not just reigned by a stronger one, you either accepted the ruling from above, tried to gain power yourself, or had to go back to living in a tribal village. But often it was something in-between.
Now we have huge, way too large societies. And somehow talked ourselves into the illusion that leaders (mindset radiators) would behave like servants (mindset absorbers), if we just believe hard enough that we chose them. ;)
Though some of us want to go back to villages again (communism). (Proven to work for ten thousands of years if it comes to that. But somehow it never gets that far.)

My suggestion would be, to replace our leaders by... Webs of trust, based on P2P networks.
And their decisions by... our own decisions, with a (self-defined rule-based) fallback on how our trusted peers decided for decisions that we don’t care or don’t feel more competent about.

Of course that means that the point of the concept of a state vanishes again. It also means that there will be much disagreement having to be resolved, or people having to move.
But see it like this: Right now we already have all those people who are forced to live together, despite their tons of unresolved strong disagreement. It’s the fault of the system we had, that those were not resolved. Not the fault of the system that finally opens the eyes again to start going back to normal.

One result of this would be e.g. the USA splitting into two groups. You know that a society should better be split up, when it’? so clear who those group are, that you don’t even have to mention them. ;)
And the only ones who would consider such split-ups to be a bad thing, are those who profit from them right now.
But I’m sorry: There are people suffering from it, and they don’t care for your profits. ;)
(Although I’m not saying it’s abnormal for you to push your own interests. I’m just saying, don’t be surprised if they do the same. :)

phew (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32630724)

Courts are increasingly mandating cumulative voting when they deem it necessary to provide fair representation.

Well then it's a good thing that it's the judiciary's role to enact public policy!

Re:phew (2, Informative)

exasperation (1378979) | more than 4 years ago | (#32630762)

Well then it's a good thing that it's the judiciary's role to enact public policy!

No, but it is the judiciary's duty to enforce the current law: the Voting Rights Act of 1965 [wikipedia.org] .

Re:phew (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32631036)

Then you're confusing "enforcing" with "enacting". It's our representatives' job to choose an approach, not the courts'. It's the courts' job to decide whether a chosen approach is constitutional or not, and that is all. (And if it's not, then it goes back to our representatives for tweaking or choosing another one entirely.)

Re:phew (3, Interesting)

Mitsoid (837831) | more than 4 years ago | (#32630766)

It's unfortunate, but... you cant expect people whom have been voted into office will allow others to more easily take their place. I'm glad the judicial system can edge in on the election system (within its limits)...

Though personally I don't think those whom are elected should be able to make/change laws about elections... but that would just make the system more complex and larger... So when the judicial system steps in and tries to keep things constitutionally in line I appreciate it.

Re:phew (2, Insightful)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 4 years ago | (#32631044)

The main issue with the US voting system (well, apart from "lobbying" which is actually legalized corruption) is gerrymandering, with which outgoing politicians try and tailor constituencies to maximize the probably they'll be reelected, and the numbers of successful candidates on their sides. Apart from the judiciary, who's gonna stop them ?

Single Transferable Vote (3, Informative)

lul_wat (1623489) | more than 4 years ago | (#32630726)

allows a political minority to gain representation if it organizes behind specific candidates

I'm pretty sure that's how most voting systems work.

It's too bad that a proportional STV (Single Transferable Vote) isn't more widely used, then there would truely be no wasted votes

Re:Single Transferable Vote (5, Informative)

LambdaWolf (1561517) | more than 4 years ago | (#32630830)

It really is unfortunate that STV, proportional or otherwise, hasn't caught on more. You can sell instant-runoff voting in three sentences: "You can vote the new way or continue voting the old way. To vote the new way, number the candidates from 1 to n in your order of preference. To vote the old way, mark the candidate you want to vote for as 1 and leave the rest blank." There's really no disadvantage to it... except that it would give third parties a foothold against the entrenched two-party system, so why would any politician in power bother to support it? (Sorry to sound so cynical, on Slashdot no less.)

Sadly, the notion that right-versus-left is American politics is getting more entrenched as well. The voters in my home state of California unfortunately just passed a ballot measure [wikimedia.org] that will allow only two candidates on the ballot for any state general election. So long, third parties. Granted, most voters were probably taken in by the promise of open primaries, which was wrapped up in the same proposition and dominated the discussion. But that's just what was so outrageous about it: no one bothers to think that politics can be more subtle than Democrats versus Republicans.

Re:Single Transferable Vote (4, Interesting)

Relic of the Future (118669) | more than 4 years ago | (#32631048)

Except instant runoff doesn't really help third parties that much.

Take a look at Australia. They've used IRV for over 100 years, and their house of representatives has two parties (well; one party and one 60+ year long two-member coalition that never oppose incumbent members of the other coalition-member; close enough.)

But approval voting and score voting really CAN allow third-parties a foothold. http://rangevoting.org/ [rangevoting.org]

Re:Single Transferable Vote (1)

LambdaWolf (1561517) | more than 4 years ago | (#32631076)

Fair enough, and thanks for the information. But my point is that IRV has the advantage of being an easier sell to a change-averse public. And while it may not really help third-party candidates get elected in practice, it would give them more publicity and relevance than they have now, and would fight the "wasted vote" effect. That is, supporters could vote for them without wasting a vote that otherwise could have helped to elect the preferable of two major candidates (at least in the typical case—Arrow's impossibility theorem, blah blah blah).

Re:Single Transferable Vote (1)

lul_wat (1623489) | more than 4 years ago | (#32631088)

IRV is intended for a single winner. STV is a multi-winner system. They are two different systems.

"Fair representation" (4, Insightful)

Tridus (79566) | more than 4 years ago | (#32630734)

What they really mean by "fair representation" would be more accurately described as "damn voters won't vote for the people we want them to, so we're screwing with the rules."

Re:"Fair representation" (2, Interesting)

DancesWithBlowTorch (809750) | more than 4 years ago | (#32630812)

What they really mean by "fair representation" would be more accurately described as "damn voters won't vote for the people we want them to, so we're screwing with the rules."

Well, it's pretty much the opposite. Cumulative voting is a system for elections involving party lists (such as city councils, in some jurisdictions). The point is that you get to assign your votes to the candidates you actually want to elect, rather than having to vote for a list of candidates that some party drew up for you, while still giving the parties a chance to nominate candidates and suggest to (not force upon) the voter a ranking among them.
This system is commonly used in local elections in Switzerland and Germany. Works well there.

Re:"Fair representation" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32630886)

The United States is not Switzerland or Germany or Australia which also has such voting. I'm blistering that "fair representation" here means someone of the desired skin color. 1,000 times NO.

Your 6 votes for a single candidate trumps my single votes for other candidates? Ridiculous! The townsfolk were morons. Districts would've made more sense, their rejection of such a reasonable system was daft. Further, this election, in theory, prematurely ended the terms for a number of trustees short circuiting the decisions made by a number of prior elections.

This is B.S. I am represented by and vote for candidates all the time who do not match my (any or all of these) race, creed, color, gender or sexual orientation. GET OVER IT.

Re:"Fair representation" (1)

Sique (173459) | more than 4 years ago | (#32630898)

What was that rant about?

And yes, your six votes for six candidates count as much as the six votes of anyone else. If you want to spread them among six candidates, that's ok. If you don't want to spread them and pile them on a single candidate -- that's a-ok. too. The candidate with the most votes wins in the end.

Re:"Fair representation" (1)

ShakaUVM (157947) | more than 4 years ago | (#32631112)

>>What was that rant about?

The background story involves Hispanic voters complaining that they weren't getting people of the right race elected.

Re:"Fair representation" (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 4 years ago | (#32631194)

It's not about skin colour. And it's a shame it's been presented like that.

If 16% of the populace broadly agree with a certain set of policies, then shouldn't those policies have 16% of the reputation? There are a lot of sets of policies, and lots of overlap between different candidates. But using a first past the post system means that all candidates may well be clones of the most popular candidate of a small minority. You lose any benefit of having multiple representatives.

Re:"Fair representation" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32630938)

No, it more like some mathematicians sat down and set imagine that we have 100 people who all want the result to come out 2 candidates to A, 1 to B and 1 to C, and then send them through the voting booths. The result? A get all the votes. Which is not a fair representation. You can do the same gedank experiments with better ensambles of voters, but the result is usually the same, that the simplest voting systems don't actually give a result which represents the opinion of the people who are voting.

Re:"Fair representation" (2, Interesting)

slick7 (1703596) | more than 4 years ago | (#32631188)

What they really mean by "fair representation" would be more accurately described as "damn voters won't vote for the people we want them to, so we're screwing with the rules."

A more fair representation would allow the "No Confidence" vote and a "Recall" vote box for each and every candidate in office every two years whether they are running or not. Then and only then will the *employees* of this nation take notice of their true employers. Also, no pay raise for any politician unless approved by 75% of the voting populace. And just like all the commercial businesses, the politicians should start paying a greater portion of their health benefits themselves and get off the free gravy train.

In use since 1870? (3, Funny)

ascari (1400977) | more than 4 years ago | (#32630756)

Yet it's news for nerds. Go figure.

Re:In use since 1870? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32630906)

I read Slashdot via repeating telegraph, you insensitive clod!

Re:In use since 1870? (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#32630944)

I read Slashdot via repeating telegraph, you insensitive clod!

I prefer the semaphore. Its hard on the arms but the message gets through!

not proportional voting, rather representation (2, Interesting)

dltaylor (7510) | more than 4 years ago | (#32630758)

Despite Thomas Jefferson's fantasies, most Americans seem to prefer parties. That's why we need a Bundestag-like proportional representation system at the state Legislature and Congressional levels (BTW, save some money and get rid of the silly state Senates). Any party (or, in our case, add individual) that can gather some significant number of members/petitioners should be placed on the ballot, and the seats of the legislative body apportioned according to the votes cast for the party/individual. That way, maybe we would have some representation of more than two (increasingly lunatic) points of view. California, for example, has several registered parties (American Independent, Democratic, Green, Libertarian, Peace and Freedom, and Republican), but legislators from only two, so a large portion of the registered voters are simply not represented at the state level. Before some idiot says "well, they just need to get enough votes", the district lines are drawn to prohibit any but the Demopublicans from getting a seat (see "Gerrymander") in any district in the state.

The real reason that we don't have such a system is that the corporations that own the Demopublicans ("Big Oil", Hollywood, ...) would have to spread their bribes over a lot more politicians and they will do whatever it takes to prevent that additional expense.

Re:not proportional voting, rather representation (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#32630780)

would have to spread their bribes over a lot more politicians and they will do whatever it takes to prevent that additional expense.

But the number of elected politicians would not increase so I don't see how this would significantly increase the number of people to be bribed.

Re:not proportional voting, rather representation (1)

dltaylor (7510) | more than 4 years ago | (#32630846)

Lump sum payments to the respective party's state/national committee would increase from 2 to six.

Re:not proportional voting, rather representation (1)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 4 years ago | (#32631180)

You will usually see donations from big industries to candidates from both parties. If there were seven parties that had a decent chance of getting their candidate elected, then they would have to bribe all seven of them - even if they don't get in this year, politicians tend to remember those who've paid them over the long term.

Re:not proportional voting, rather representation (2, Informative)

surveyork (1505897) | more than 4 years ago | (#32630828)

Most of the World's democracies work with proportional representation, AFAIK. The American system of giving all the representatives of one state to the most voted party (national election) always looked odd to me. If I understand it correctly, a party getting 30% of the votes gets all the representatives if the other (hypothetical) parties get 29%, 29% and 12%. Doesn't seem fair.

Re:not proportional voting, rather representation (1)

dltaylor (7510) | more than 4 years ago | (#32630862)

Great Britain, IIRC, also has Members of Parliament from specific districts.

If the "Silly Party" candidate out-polls the Conservatives, "Very Silly Party", ..., then the "Silly Party" candidate wins and represents the entire district.

Re:not proportional voting, rather representation (3, Informative)

taniwha (70410) | more than 4 years ago | (#32631004)

I think you're misinformed about how such things work. Here in New Zealand we use something very like the German system - while the tiny details may be different the basic idea is the same.

Parliament or whatever has N seats, everyone gets two votes:
- the first is for a local representative elected using FPP almost exactly as you do for the House in the US - there are N/2 local representative seats.
- the second is for a party, after the first set of votes are counted and the number of party representatives with local seats are determined the total party votes for the country are tallied - the second N/2 seats are allocated to representatives off of party nominated lists so that when added to the first N/2 the party seat count in parliament comes out according to the second vote

There are various details around minimum votes to get party seats and various rules for strange overhang situations that those can create that are different from system to system.

And yes we haven't had a single government since we changed to this system where a single party got 50% or more of the vote - all governments have been coalitions - it means politicians have to make public agreements and compromises which result in them acting more constrained in their actions than they would have been if they'd gotten 30% of the votes in an FPP election but 60% of the seats - it's a wonderful thing - many of the politicians, especially the old school ones, hate it.

Re:not proportional voting, rather representation (1)

BluePeppers (1596987) | more than 4 years ago | (#32631068)

Yes Great Britain does have members of parliment and linked constituencies. However, it's not massivly popular, so I personaly wouldn't use it as an example.

Re:not proportional voting, rather representation (3, Informative)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 4 years ago | (#32631126)

No, don't get rid of the state legislatures.

They're some of the last fragments of the way the US was supposed to work, before Lincoln screwed it all up with his ham-fisted approach to ending slavery, that ended up giving colossal power to the federal government.

The states were supposed to have all the power, and to have that, you need your own governmental system.

That's also why there's the electoral college - it's counterproductive in a federal-centric system, but it makes sense in a state-centric system. And the US Senate - which should be elected by the governments of the states, IIRC, NOT the people - that was an attempt to prevent mob rule, and represent the states themselves in US government - the House of Representatives was intended to represent the people.

Ranking system (4, Interesting)

loufoque (1400831) | more than 4 years ago | (#32630760)

A ranking system is the right solution.

If 50%-something would like A to win, are ok with B, but definitely don't want C, and if the 50%-something others are the exact opposite, then the best candidate should be B, not A or C where it's only down to little percentage different.

Re:Ranking system (1)

philljcool (1085873) | more than 4 years ago | (#32630888)

In Australia we use a similar system: preferential voting [wikimedia.org] .

Re:Ranking system (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#32630900)

In Australia we use a similar system: preferential voting [wikimedia.org] .

And yet we still have to choose between Rudd and Abbot. Don't get me wrong, its good that we have a few minor parties there but preferential voting won't break us out of the two party system.

I think its also a marketing problem. Ford vs Holden, Coke vs Pepsi, Nokia vs Apple.

Re:Ranking system (1)

philljcool (1085873) | more than 4 years ago | (#32631202)

I agree that it is a marketing problem. Technically it is Rudd vs Abbot vs Brown vs ... but we all know that it isn't. Even if we switched to proportional representation I doubt we would get anything other than generic centre-left/centre-right parties winning the election.

No, not rankings; RATINGS (0, Offtopic)

Relic of the Future (118669) | more than 4 years ago | (#32630922)

Except the most-commonly suggested ranking system (instant runoff voting, AKA ranked choice voting, AKA the alternative vote), doesn't do that. Instead, it would eliminate B in the first round, leaving a narrow decision between A and C; just like how we have now.

What would work better is a rating-based system, not a ranking-based one.

The two best-known rating-based systems are approval voting (give every candidate a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down) and score voting (AKA range voting; give each candidate any score from within a given range, like 0-5 or 0-10.) If 50% of voters gave A 10 points, B 6 or more points, and C 0 points, and 50% reversed A and C, then B wins; as you think they should.

More information about score and approval voting is available at The Center for Range Voting [rangevoting.org]

Re:Ranking system (1)

ZorroXXX (610877) | more than 4 years ago | (#32630950)

I totally agree that B would be the best candidate, but I do not think ranking is the best solution. Any ranking system is relatively complex compared to the triviality of one single selection. And you definitely do not want to add complexity to voting systems.

In my opinion the best voting system is to give one vote to every candidate you approve of. This has two very important properties:

  • This is so trivially simple that anyone will get it intuitively, there is no reason to explain anything.
  • It is extremely familiar to the most used voting system that people already are used to (it really is a generalization of "give 0 or 1 vote" to "give 0 to N votes" (0 meaning voting blank)).

This will fully support the objective of

If 50%-something would like A to win, are ok with B, but definitely don't want C, and if the 50%-something others are the exact opposite, then the best candidate should be B, not A or C where it's only down to little percentage different.

With a system of one vote per candidate you approve, then 50% would give one vote to A and one vote to B. The other 50% gives one vote to B and one vote to C. So (with 3 candidates) B would end up with 50% of the total number of votes, and A and C with 25% each.

Re:Ranking system (1)

gwbennett (988163) | more than 4 years ago | (#32631020)

If 50-something% want A,B, then C, and 50-something% want C,B then A, then 100something% voted and I demand a recount.

Re:Ranking system (1)

OneMadMuppet (1329291) | more than 4 years ago | (#32631034)

PR-STV. Ireland uses it, and it works very well.

Re:Ranking system (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32631230)

Ranked voting is also known as "instant runoff voting" and is much better than "cumulative voting". Instant runoff voting results in the consensus candidate winning, which is the opposite of what often happens in the party-based primary+general 1-vote system.

In a primary+general 1-vote system, the party candidates tend towards the extremes in the primary, so the final vote is between two parties (because voters are afraid to vote for a third-party that may result in the least-worst of the two main party candidates losing - i.e. the spoiler candidate effect) and voters are stuck with the least-worst of those two options that may be fairly extreme. As an example of a bad case, consider three general election candidates (worse cases can happen with more candidates) that have each won their party's primary, two of which have similar ideologies who each get 33% and the one with a very different ideology gets 34%. The voters overwhelmingly chose the first ideology (66%) but the other one (34%) wins because it has the largest vote. The winner is first or second choice of only 34% of voters and is the third (i.e. worst) choice for 66% of the voters --- definitely not the consensus/moderate candidate that the majority of voters can get behind.

In an instant-runoff system, voters rank the candidates. The votes then get processed in rounds until only two candidates are left (at which point 50%+1 wins). In each round, the candidate with the smallest number of top-choice votes is eliminated and those votes are given to the next choice of each voter who voted for that eliminated candidate. Continuing the example above, lets assume that the voters with two similar ideologies (each 33%) rank their own as first, the similar as second, and the opposite as third, and lets assume the voters with the opposite ideology (34%) rank their own as first, the least-objectionable of the others as second, and the more-objectionable of the others as third. This will result in the consensus/moderate candidate winning and the winner being the first or second choice of 100% of the voters (note: the winner won't always be first or second choice of 100% like in this contrived example, but instant-runoff will result in one far closer to 100% than with other voting methods).

CA recently passed an initiative that lets voters of all parties vote for any candidate during primary elections, with the top two going to the general election. Although this is not as good as ranked (instant-runnoff) voting, it is a step in the right direction (towards consensus candidates). I can't use exactly the same example as above because it relies on the primary, but lets say the two similar ideologies put forth primary candidates that get 32% and 33% and the opposite ideology gets 35%. The top two go to the general election, and lets say all of those that voted for the 32% candidate will get behind the 33% candidate with the most-similar ideology, resulting in a winner that between 65% and 100% of the voters would have ranked as first or second (depending on whether the 33% candidate was the second or third choice of the 35% voters). From this example, you can see how this system fixes the problem of the spoiler candidate resulting in a win by a candidate with less than 50% ranking as first or second, but does not always result in the consensus candidate (i.e. the 32% candidate that lost in the primary may have been the more moderate consensus candidate).

Some interesting stats (2, Interesting)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#32630768)

Seems to be that the system was expensive and might have been too democratic.
"Black Representation Under Cumulative Voting in IL"
http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=419 [fairvote.org]
Did careerism also play a part?

Cumulative Voting and Vote-Splitting (5, Informative)

prefec2 (875483) | more than 4 years ago | (#32630798)

Cumulative voting and vote-splitting is largely used in Germany on municipal contexts. So you could say that it has been evaluated now at least for 60 years and it worked perfectly. However, it is not used on state and federal level, but as we can vote there for different parties and not (only) for representatives which belong to parties, different social groups can vote for their party and get a fair share in the parliament.
  • CDU = conservatives/right wing/traditionalists
  • SPD = social democrats/becoming more and more conservative
  • Grüne = green party/for liberals and ecological motivated people
  • Linke = socialist party/party for the poor and for pacifists
  • FDP = neo liberal party/for those who have money and do not want to share their wealth as they do not see that they are also responsible for the poor in the country (as stated in the German constitution)
  • DVU/REP/NDP = very right wing nationalists/only present in parliaments in some eastern states of Germany

There are also a lot of other parties, however they didn't make it in any parliament. But there are parties for families, "true to the Bible"-Christians, or a party with yogic flyer called natural law party (however they dissolved 2004).

Re:Cumulative Voting and Vote-Splitting (1)

rec9140 (732463) | more than 4 years ago | (#32630936)

" different social groups can vote for their party and get a fair share in the parliament"

Its NOT about a "fair share" in an election.

If the only basis is that the legislative body what ever it is be a "fair share" then there is no point to an election.

The basis of the legislative body then should be based on population

So if municipality x has a population of 10,000 its broken down as:

90% ghosts
1% ghouls
1% gremlins

And the legislative body has say 10 members then

9 Members are ghosts and 1 members is either a ghoul or gremlin? So how do you decide which gets the seat...Flip of a coin.

There is NOTHING FAIR or PROPORTIONATE in government, or elections. Time to get over that notion. Not even the founders of the US thought that, hence the Electoral College.

Re:Cumulative Voting and Vote-Splitting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32630992)

Kill a gremlin and make him a ghost. Now he fits both categories.

Re:Cumulative Voting and Vote-Splitting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32631056)

How about the 8% that are goblins, you insensitive clod!!!!!

Re:Cumulative Voting and Vote-Splitting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32631090)

DVU/REP/NDP = very right wing nationalists/only present in parliaments in some eastern states of Germany

Oh, come on, let's call a spade a spade. They're nazis, plain and simple.

Bonus points for zealotry? (1)

Mechanized Elf (682620) | more than 4 years ago | (#32630800)

How is this better than ranked voting? The last thing we want is more power for deeply grooved special interests.

One Person - One Vote! (-1, Troll)

rec9140 (732463) | more than 4 years ago | (#32630804)

Anything else is anti-American and facist, communist or any other term you want to apply to it

Unless your can split your self into 6 different persons, then you get ONE PHYSICAL VOTE.

The top six candidates get the 6 open positions, with the highest vote getter being the president/chairman.

Oh... and for that community... ENGLISH is the language of the land! REMOVE THAT OTHER CRAP from your ballot!

Re:One Person - One Vote! (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#32630814)

So whats your preference? First past the post or Single transferable vote?

Re:One Person - One Vote! (0, Troll)

rec9140 (732463) | more than 4 years ago | (#32630844)

> First past the post or Single transferable vote?

Exactly what I outlined.

"First past the post "

Anything else and especially that single thing is COMMUNISTIC!

ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE. Non transferable. You vote for a loser, you loose. Too bad.

Re:One Person - One Vote! (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#32630864)

But with STV your vote only ever goes to one candidate. Its just a way of saying I want candidate C to win but if it comes down to A and B then I choose B. In this scenario B gets your vote.

Re:One Person - One Vote! (-1, Troll)

rec9140 (732463) | more than 4 years ago | (#32630912)

"Its just a way of saying I want candidate C to win but if it comes down to A and B then I choose B. In this scenario B gets your vote."

If I am voting for C, I am not voting for A or B."

No. That is communistic and wholly un-American in more ways than can be counted!

ONE VOTE. I vote for A. They don't get the majority of votes. TOO BAD, My choose looses.

Re:One Person - One Vote! (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#32630932)

The system you favour inevitably leads to a two party system with conservative policies. That may be okay if you like the status quo, but life generally requires adapting to new conditions and the first past the post system does not encourage new candidates who will propose genuine change.

Re:One Person - One Vote! (1)

rec9140 (732463) | more than 4 years ago | (#32630972)

You don't need "parties."

Speak your piece on the issues and if your views are in sync with the voters you get their votes.

Abolish political parties, PAC's, and the rest of the their ilk and make the candidates run on their VIEWS alone.

Hi, I Am Joe Idiot and I am running for Mayor of Hooterville. This is what I am going to do: ...................

Candidates need to speak THEIR OPINION not the opinion of some bunch of unelectable puppeteers. See "If I'm Lucky" 1946.

Re:One Person - One Vote! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32630978)

"un-American" is a good thing.

Re:One Person - One Vote! (1)

rec9140 (732463) | more than 4 years ago | (#32631000)

"un-American" is a good thing."

Then "UN-[UK, Irish, French, Spanish, Italian, Swiss, Austrian, Canadian, Russian, Turkish, Lithuanian...." is a GOOD THING!

Re:One Person - One Vote! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32630914)

Uhm... I think you're being trolled.

Which is odd because the OP was really trying to satirise and not troll.

Re:One Person - One Vote! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32630908)

Your post is the best argument against your system that I have heard so far.

Also you might consider that by not accepting any other opinions than your own you are a fascist.
And they whole "One Person - One Vote!" thing is what communists have been babbling about all along, you know, the opposite of the capitalistic system where you can buy votes.

I agree this is bad. (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 4 years ago | (#32630816)

"Cumulative" voting is too prone to abuse. There are better (more mathematically "fair") voting systems. Take instant runoff voting for example. Statistically, it appears to satisfy the most people, most of the time, without too many quirks that some of the others suffer from, like the possibility of a minority winning under some circumstances.

Re:I agree this is bad. (1)

rec9140 (732463) | more than 4 years ago | (#32630902)

"There are better (more mathematically "fair") voting systems."

The only system that is broke really is the Electoral College.

Ye who gets the most votes WINS! Even if its 1 VOTE that decides the winner... (wasn't that a really bad movie) any way...

If there are 10,000 votes cast and the breakdown is:

5001 for candidate 1
4999 for candidate 2

Candidate 1 is the WINNER they got the most votes.

Candidate 2 can ask for a recount if they like, if the numbers come up the same... BYE BYE LOOSER!

Its a simple process. No advanced math, statistician needed.

Simple majority of votes. Done.

If need to fill x seats then starting with the highest vote getter - seat y of x, 2nd highest vote getter, seat z of x etc.. till all seats area exhausted.

Districts leads to jerrymandering and the only thing it does is ensure that some one who probably wasn't qualified to be elected to begin with gets elected simply because of race, ethnicity, hair color, age or how ever the district was rigged (jerrymandered).

Re:I agree this is bad. (4, Insightful)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 4 years ago | (#32631140)

Electoral college wasn't intended for the top-heavy government we have today - it was intended for the pre-Lincoln weak central, strong state governments. And the people weren't SUPPOSED to elect the President or Senators - the people got to elect the House of Representatives - that was for the state governments themselves.

Re:I agree this is bad. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32630996)

like the possibility of a minority winning under some circumstances

That's the reason they chose cumulative voting. To allow minorities to win seats that they normally wouldn't have enough votes for.

This method makes cheating easyer. (0)

cuby (832037) | more than 4 years ago | (#32630842)

If anyone can cast the votes he wants how can you be right about how many people have voted. This clearly violates the one man one vote principle. If protecting minorities is what you want, simply use the hondt method http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'Hondt_method [wikipedia.org] .

Re:This method makes cheating easyer. (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#32630850)

If anyone can cast the votes he wants how can you be right about how many people have voted.

Count the ballot papers.

Re:This method makes cheating easyer. (1)

cuby (832037) | more than 4 years ago | (#32631190)

voters can apportion their votes as they wish -- all to one candidate, one to each candidate, or any combination.

According to this, there will be more ballots than voters.

Re:This method makes cheating easyer. (1)

u38cg (607297) | more than 4 years ago | (#32631162)

There is no such principle, at least not in general. The purpose of a voting system is to map the expressed desires of the electorate onto a small number of representatives. There are several different methods of deciding whether such a mapping is a "good" one, and each of these criterion is to some extent mutually incompatible.

Single Transferable Vote (2, Interesting)

rfugger (923317) | more than 4 years ago | (#32630890)

I think the system they're looking for is the single transferable vote [wikipedia.org] . With cumulative voting, various interests have to figure out how many candidates they have the numbers to elect and then organize their voters ahead of the election. With STV, the system itself does this all for them and gives fair, proportional results.

Preferential voting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32630892)

Why not just use preferential voting? [wikipedia.org]

The "fairest" thing since affirmative action (0, Flamebait)

Coolhand2120 (1001761) | more than 4 years ago | (#32630956)

I would like to point out that it's not just counting someone 6 times, it's making everyone else's vote count as 1/6th the vote of people "selected" by the government. What a great way to bring people together. This will just infuriate the people who are now worth a fraction of a vote and further isolate "selected" groups from the mainstream.

Since the government selects the multiplier and the "victim" group of people, it will be no surprise that the group will vote for a larger and more authoritarian government that gave them this power over the "regular" people. What obvious and malicious tampering, why secretly steel votes when you can just make a new law that does it for you!

And why stop at 6? Why not 10? Why not 100? Why not 1000? Once you have made the leap of logic that one person's vote is worth more than another person's vote there is no limit to how much you can alter the outcomes of elections to favor whatever candidate the controlling party likes. This is just pure banana republic, Hugo Chavez style lawlessness.

And this is from the same folks that think that a different test for everyone depending on their skin color is fair, but the same test for everyone regardless of skin color is unfair. More liberal logic: These people, what the liberals have forced me to call them, are not smart enough to take the same tests as "regular" people. But they should be given a vote that is worth 6x the vote as "regular" people, which by the liberal's standards, are smarter than them? That's just as stupid and contradictory as the two ideas on their own!

In this country, as it should be everywhere, everyone should be treated exactly the same regardless of their skin color, gender, age, religion. "These people" are "regular" people. It is only a label given to them by liberals and the government (ever fill out a government form?). There should be no arbitrarily payoffs by power hungry politicians of this group and that group. We are all humans. We live together in a society of laws that cannot be arbitrarily tossed aside when you want to get a few more votes.

To say, as liberals do, that one race is inferior to another is a crime against nature but it's said over and over by these people in the guise of helping. But the only result, and their only real interest, is a more authoritarian and power hungry government that has more interest in tricking, hiding and asserting total control over the people than helping the people.

Everybody get 6 votes. (2, Informative)

spaceturtle (687994) | more than 4 years ago | (#32631144)

Tthey always got 6 votes. All that has changed is that before they had to vote for 6 different candidates, but now they can combine their votes.

So how does benefit minority groups? Well say there were 6+ white candidates but only one black candidate. Then voters could spend their votes only on white candidates, but did not have the option of spending their votes only on black candidates. So under the new system, if one sixth of the population wants a black representative, they get one. In principle this doesn't give them real political power, since the 5 white representatives could still out-vote them; however, for various reasons having a non-white representative gives some people warm fuzzies. For example a representative is meant to represent people as well as cast votes, so black people may be glad to have a black representative even if this doesn't directly increase their political power.

Re:The "fairest" thing since affirmative action (1)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 4 years ago | (#32631146)

Um, what?

Where's the -1, Wrong mod when you need it?

You get six votes. You DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO with them. Don't use them at all. Give all six to one candidate. Give them to six different candidates. Any other distribution of those six votes among less candidates. Your choice.

Either way, your voice gets heard equally, no matter who you are. It's just that you can weakly say you prefer all of these candidates, or strongly say you prefer one candidate, or moderately say you prefer a smaller group of candidates.

Re:The "fairest" thing since affirmative action (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#32631168)

1/6th the vote of people "selected" by the government?
Your first vote counts as one if your over 50%.
The rest is coalition building in the hands of the people.
Not some closed room political machine, pundit or cleric.
Malicious tampering is more in the counting by computer without a paper trail ;)

Re:The "fairest" thing since affirmative action (3, Insightful)

u38cg (607297) | more than 4 years ago | (#32631172)

You are rather misrepresenting the liberal position on positive discrimination. The point is not that one group is *inherently* smarter than another; it is that the entrenched disparity due to socio-economic factors is such that simple equality of treatment will not erode the differences between these groups over any meaningful timescale. Personally, I would prefer to see other solutions than simply applying skewed tests, but I do believe it is a problem that ought to be addressed in some way. What has your party done to deal with it?

Re:The "fairest" thing since affirmative action (4, Informative)

Noonian Soong (1016626) | more than 4 years ago | (#32631176)

it's making everyone else's vote count as 1/6th the vote of people "selected" by the government.

If that was the case, cumulative voting would be bad, yes. But it doesn't work that way. What cumulative voting is, it gives everyone more votes to distribute among candidates. So everyone's vote is basically split into fractions, but everyone's ballot has the same weight overall. So if I (and everyone else) got 10 votes, I might chose to give 3 (respectively 3/10 of my vote) votes to candidate A, 2 (2/10) to candidate C, D, and J and 1 (1/10) vote to candidate X. This way, I can show that I like candidate A the most, but I'm also ok with candidates C, D, J, and X, but not with everyone else on the ballot.

Waste of votes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32631026)

All this does is wastes people's votes who are silly enough to not vote with all their votes for the person they really want to win.

Equal Protection? (0)

Apple Acolyte (517892) | more than 4 years ago | (#32631062)

Based on what I've read and heard about this legal precedent, I'm having a difficult time understanding how it's at all constitutional. Let me get this straight - because Hispanics are supposedly underrepresented as a portion of the voting population, the Hispanics who voted in this court controlled election are getting 6 votes to the single vote that non-Hispanics get? They say this is supposed to provide equal protection to the Hispanic minority, but I don't see how granting extra votes to Hispanics doesn't adversely impact the equal protection guaranteed to every other citizen.

What am I missing here?

Re:Equal Protection? (-1, Troll)

tnok85 (1434319) | more than 4 years ago | (#32631138)

You must be a Beck watching Limbaugh listening Palin wanking Rand reading tea party nutjob RACIST.

Re:Equal Protection? (2, Informative)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 4 years ago | (#32631154)

No, looks like everyone gets six votes.

What it looks like to me is that, under the old system, there was one candidate being elected at a time. So, 25% of the people wanted a Hispanic in office, apparently, but everyone else didn't.

Under the new system, all six candidates get elected at a time. Those 25% of the people now got their wishes heard, because everyone was running against everyone, and not some crap like being pre-assigned a seat, and having to fight for that seat (at least that's how things work here in Ohio, if there's multiple seats in the same position up for grabs, things might work differently there) - and, if someone didn't mind the hispanic guy, they could say that, even if they were really voting for someone else.

Re:Equal Protection? (1)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 4 years ago | (#32631220)

While you are right, the system itself is very, very, wrong.

We are supposed to be a democratic republic, where every legal voter gets one vote for each set of candidates. In this system, one gets six votes, one vote for each candidate and can vote multiple times for a single candidate.

The proper thing to do was to break the town in to districts. Another thing that could have been done was have all the trustees elected at the same time, with the top six as the winners.

The judge should be removed from the bench. Unfortunately, he can not be charged with election fraud as he so richly deserves.

Cumulative voting is great for allowing a specific minority to elect officials. It is also great for election fraud. It is undemocratic and it is unamerican.

even more powerful than potato batteries (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32631082)

able to cut through total bs, getting to 'stuff that (really) matters' in the wink of an eye. that's the creators' newclear powered devices. coming (already here) to a planet near you.

http://www.youtube.com/csetiweb#p/f

meanwhile (meaning possibly quite a while); the corepirate nazi illuminati is always hunting that patch of red on almost everyones' neck. if they cannot find yours (greed, fear ego etc...) then you can go starve. that's their 'platform' now.

never a better time to consult with/trust in our creators. the lights are coming up rapidly all over now. see you there?

greed, fear & ego (in any order) are unprecedented evile's primary weapons. those, along with deception & coercion, helps most of us remain (unwittingly?) dependent on its' life0cidal hired goons' agenda. most of our dwindling resources are being squandered on the 'wars', & continuation of the billionerrors stock markup FraUD/pyramid schemes. nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & any notion of prosperity for us, or our children. not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one, & the terminal damage to our atmosphere (see also: manufactured 'weather', hot etc...). see you on the other side of it? the lights are coming up all over now. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be your guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. we now have some choices. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on your brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

"The current rate of extinction is around 10 to 100 times the usual background level, and has been elevated above the background level since the Pleistocene. The current extinction rate is more rapid than in any other extinction event in earth history, and 50% of species could be extinct by the end of this century. While the role of humans is unclear in the longer-term extinction pattern, it is clear that factors such as deforestation, habitat destruction, hunting, the introduction of non-native species, pollution and climate change have reduced biodiversity profoundly.' (wiki)

"I think the bottom line is, what kind of a world do you want to leave for your children," Andrew Smith, a professor in the Arizona State University School of Life Sciences, said in a telephone interview. "How impoverished we would be if we lost 25 percent of the world's mammals," said Smith, one of more than 100 co-authors of the report. "Within our lifetime hundreds of species could be lost as a result of our own actions, a frightening sign of what is happening to the ecosystems where they live," added Julia Marton-Lefevre, IUCN director general. "We must now set clear targets for the future to reverse this trend to ensure that our enduring legacy is not to wipe out many of our closest relatives."--

"The wealth of the universe is for me. Every thing is explicable and practical for me .... I am defeated all the time; yet to victory I am born." --emerson

no need to confuse 'religion' with being a spiritual being. our soul purpose here is to care for one another. failing that, we're simply passing through (excess baggage) being distracted/consumed by the guaranteed to fail illusionary trappings of man'kind'. & recently (about 10,000 years ago) it was determined that hoarding & excess by a few, resulted in negative consequences for all.

consult with/trust in your creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." )one does not need to agree whois in charge to grasp the notion that there may be some assistance available to us(

boeing, boeing, gone.

Negative votes (2, Insightful)

michelcolman (1208008) | more than 4 years ago | (#32631130)

Even better would be a system where you could not only vote for certain candidates, but also against them. For example, the same system with 6 votes, but you could choose to give 4 votes to a certain candidate, and 2 votes against another. This could serve to keep racist and other undesirable candidates out. Maybe divide the negative votes by half, though, so you don't get a situation where 49% vote for A and against B, 49% for B against A, and C wins with 2% of the votes. This would also limit tactical abuse of the system, since a vote for a candidate is more productive than a vote against his opponent.

Cumulative vomiting (1)

tsa (15680) | more than 4 years ago | (#32631152)

I read 'cumulative vomiting' and thought it was some new artsy thing people do in the States.

The so-called claim "equalily" in voting (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32631156)

They say that cumulative voting will give the Hispanics in the area, who make roughly half the population, equal representation. However, according to articles I've read about this area, only a quarter of that half of the population vote. Then they wonder why a White candidate wins and there is no Hispanic on the 6 seat board? We can't vote for you. Why is the idea of splitting up that area into 6 seats "a bad idea", like you would your county commissioners in most American areas? One area would be predominately Hispanic, which would ensure atleast one seat would be for a candidate with the Hispanics' interest, but they won't do it that way.

I don't understand how giving 6 votes to a quarter of the actual voting population is going to help and yet the judges and election officials give each other pats on the back because one Hispanic candidate actually won a seat after you give voters 6 votes? Am I missing something?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?