I am immensely pissed off at the mathematical illiteracy of everyone.

[Blahface]

There have never been two more unfavorable candidates running for President in American history. Unfortunately, these are the two candidates that we are a stuck with because if we vote for anyone else we are helping the candidate we hate most win.

This is a problem with our voting system that everyone seems to overlook. It is alarming that there is no public outcry to change the system or acknowledge that the problem even exists. Even progressive voices in the media like TYT who are so gungho about changing the system don't seem to see a problem with the way we elect candidates(other than money in politics). With the exception of CGPGrey, there aren't even any popular youtubers who are acknowledging this problem.

I understand that it would be very difficult to get this fixed for the Presidential election, but that doesn't mean you can't at least talk about the problem or help individual states deal with the problem. Right now, there will be a ballot measure this November in Maine to switch to instant runoff voting statewide. I am not a fan of IRV, but this would be a huge step up. This should be one of the top issues being talked about in the progressive media, but they are dead silent on it.

The more candidates we have, the more likely it should be that we can elect a candidate that best represents the population as a whole. Instead, we have a system in which the more candidates that run, the more unrepresentative results become. How is there not a huge public outcry about this? This isn't calculus; this is basic arithmetic.

 

[ksen]

maths are hard

 

[jonatha]

There have never been two more unfavorable candidates running for President in American history.

1856? 1896? 1920?

ETA - I guess it depends on what you mean by "unfavorable". Perhaps if you mean "unpopular". But if you mean "unqualified", "corrupt", or some such, I stand by my original post...

 

[dismal]

I am immensely pissed off at the mathematical illiteracy of everyone.

Try consoling yourself with a big house and fancy car.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, one out of five people agree with you that mathematical illiteracy is a bad thing, so you're in the majority with your opinion.

 

[dismal]

Well, one out of five people agree with you that mathematical illiteracy is a bad thing, so you're in the majority with your opinion.

Wow, 33%!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Louisiana has a jungle primary that led to a corrupt motherfucker, William Jefferson, getting reelected to the House.

While modifying the election may help in reducing a binary election setup, I don't see how any changes would do anything but kind of gerrymander districts, where two Democrats or two Republicans would face each other in the General Election. I suppose it is possible that a party could sway a little more to the center or the edges in certain districts, but are we going to see great change?

I'd rather pass a Constitutional Amendment to deal with campaign finance reform. Making it possible for Proles to run for office may make things a bit more doable to enact change than changing how we vote for people. What good is changing voting methods if it costs $1 billion per candidate to run for President?

 

[prideandfall]

How is there not a huge public outcry about this?

because most people who are politically minded don't have much of a problem with it.

the bulk of voter politics in the US seems to come down to either single/double issue voting or "gut feeling" voting, with little interest in broader issues.
abortion, guns, the supreme court, "the economy", and how we deal with brown people: this makes up 90% of the concerns of the electorate, with the other 10% being the ones who care about shit like infrastructure or foreign relations and the like.

fact is, the Big Four issues are covered by the Ds and the Rs and the two parties are pretty much opposite to each other on each of the 4 issues, so that covers everything most people care about.
how popular is a given candidate is largely irrelevant outside of how enthusiastic the party base becomes with regard to going out and voting, so there's no real need to change the system because it works just fine for the vast majority of people.

 

[Bomb#20]

There have never been two more unfavorable candidates running for President in American history. Unfortunately, these are the two candidates that we are a stuck with because if we vote for anyone else we are helping the candidate we hate most win.

This is a problem with our voting system that everyone seems to overlook. It is alarming that there is no public outcry to change the system or acknowledge that the problem even exists.

Well, that's a mathematically illiterate analysis.

Vote for whatever third party or write-in candidate you think is better than Donald or Hillary -- and you can't shoot a spitball in this country without hitting somebody who'd make a better president than Donald or Hillary -- in the sure and certain confidence that you have not helped the candidate you hate most win. Illinois isn't a swing state. How anybody who doesn't live in a swing state votes will not change the outcome.

In order to even have the problem you describe, first we need to fix the bigger problem that a large majority for candidate A in one state can be cancelled out by a tiny majority for candidate B in a different state. I.e., we need to turn off the electoral college.

 

[Tristan Scott]

I understand that it would be very difficult to get this fixed ....

That's why it is the way it is. It would require the people who want to change it to actually do something. It would require a lot of work and time.

 

[bilby]

I understand that it would be very difficult to get this fixed ....

That's why it is the way it is. It would require the people who want to change it to actually do something. It would require a lot of work and time.

Can't somebody else do it?

Surely if we whinge enough on the Internet, someone with more 'not me'-ness will step up and make it happen, right?

 

[Blahface]

Louisiana has a jungle primary that led to a corrupt motherfucker, William Jefferson, getting reelected to the House.

While modifying the election may help in reducing a binary election setup, I don't see how any changes would do anything but kind of gerrymander districts, where two Democrats or two Republicans would face each other in the General Election. I suppose it is possible that a party could sway a little more to the center or the edges in certain districts, but are we going to see great change?

I'd rather pass a Constitutional Amendment to deal with campaign finance reform. Making it possible for Proles to run for office may make things a bit more doable to enact change than changing how we vote for people. What good is changing voting methods if it costs $1 billion per candidate to run for President?

The jungle primary is a terrible system and doesn't do anything about vote splitting. It would only be good if approval voting were used to get the two candidates. At the least it would make gerrymandered districts more competitive and move the district to the center. It would also reverse the current process which I think would be a good thing. What I mean by that is that currently we pick which brand we want in the general election and we pick a personality for that brand in the primary election. With a top two approval system, we'd be picking a more fine tuned brand in the primary and then we'd pick a personality for that brand in the general.

- - - Updated - - -

How is there not a huge public outcry about this?

because most people who are politically minded don't have much of a problem with it.

the bulk of voter politics in the US seems to come down to either single/double issue voting or "gut feeling" voting, with little interest in broader issues.
abortion, guns, the supreme court, "the economy", and how we deal with brown people: this makes up 90% of the concerns of the electorate, with the other 10% being the ones who care about shit like infrastructure or foreign relations and the like.

fact is, the Big Four issues are covered by the Ds and the Rs and the two parties are pretty much opposite to each other on each of the 4 issues, so that covers everything most people care about.
how popular is a given candidate is largely irrelevant outside of how enthusiastic the party base becomes with regard to going out and voting, so there's no real need to change the system because it works just fine for the vast majority of people.

Not according to Gallup.

Also, voters don't always fit neatly into one of the two packages. Even if those are the only issues, a lot of people don't fully agree with the Dems or the GOP on all of them.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I understand that it would be very difficult to get this fixed ....

That's why it is the way it is. It would require the people who want to change it to actually do something. It would require a lot of work and time.

Also brain cells would have to be spent on something other than fervent patriotism.

 

[ronburgundy]

Blahface,

What are you advocating for? Approval voting or Rank order voting?

I have a huge problem with Approval voting, rooted primarily in the total subjective, unreliable, and arbitrary nature of the "approval" cutoff that will not only vary between people, but within a person from moment to moment. If a person prefers candidates 1 through 4 in that numerical order, how should they vote in an approval system?
They can vote any one of 5 ways and all would be equally sincere and valid in terms of reflecting that preference. They could "approve" all, or none, the top 3, top 2, or top 1. Where the "approval" cutoff is can be like thowing a dart. The result is that depending on what subjective cutoff voters with different preferences choose would determine the outcome.

 

[Speakpigeon]

There have never been two more unfavorable candidates running for President in American history. Unfortunately, these are the two candidates that we are a stuck with because if we vote for anyone else we are helping the candidate we hate most win.

This is a problem with our voting system that everyone seems to overlook. It is alarming that there is no public outcry to change the system or acknowledge that the problem even exists. Even progressive voices in the media like TYT who are so gungho about changing the system don't seem to see a problem with the way we elect candidates(other than money in politics). With the exception of CGPGrey, there aren't even any popular youtubers who are acknowledging this problem.

I understand that it would be very difficult to get this fixed for the Presidential election, but that doesn't mean you can't at least talk about the problem or help individual states deal with the problem. Right now, there will be a ballot measure this November in Maine to switch to instant runoff voting statewide. I am not a fan of IRV, but this would be a huge step up. This should be one of the top issues being talked about in the progressive media, but they are dead silent on it.

The more candidates we have, the more likely it should be that we can elect a candidate that best represents the population as a whole. Instead, we have a system in which the more candidates that run, the more unrepresentative results become. How is there not a huge public outcry about this? This isn't calculus; this is basic arithmetic.

The system doesn't allow individuals to change the system just because they'd like a different one. But there are provisions for changing things over time. The population can vote for the less bad candidate. Surely, it will be better to vote Hillary than to vote Trump. Individuals can also join the party they think is not so bad as the other(s) to try and make it move in the right direction.Anyone can also create a new party and people do that. But it's a life commitment, often with little reward. Change will mostly come from opportunity and joining forces on an opportunistic basis, i.e. with people you think are bad but still less bad than others. If there were more people to do this, things would change faster but things are changing so some people must be working on it. That being said, there may be factors difficult to spot that make change more difficult. And there are periods where the situation just seems to get worse and worse. But the general idea remains true. It's like Churchill said. Democracy is bad but it's the best we have so it's still better to work with that. Other people in other times have tried to be more authoritarian about change but it didn't work out too good as far as I know. And look at the various democracies in the world, it's a hard and thankless job and no so many people have the qualities to do a good job. What we get is largely a function of who we are. Improvements like better hygiene, more food, civil rights, good governance etc. came as much from personal dedication to others as from self-interest. And it doesn't help that we really are all different in our perspectives so even "good" people may get to oppose each others. And, none of us is so smart that he could plot out the optimal path from here to Utopia. We have our limitations, flaws and bad habits as the song says. Still, keep going and good luck.
EB

 

[iolo]

The key difficulty, I think, is that journalists are so often innumerate. I have (just about) our old 'O' Level qualification in Maths, but my Wife has a Cambridge Maths degree, and though she finds it depressing, knows her statistics. By and large, outside the Economist, public discussions of anything involving numbers is at such a half-witted level that it is difficult to suppose that anyone who wants popular votes needs to know even how many feet he/she possesses, and what this can do for economic descions doesn't bear thinking about.

 

[fromderinside]

I am immensely pissed off at the mathematical illiteracy of everyone.

Try consoling yourself with a big house and fancy car.

Try getting a big house or fancy car if you can't do basic math.

 

[Blahface]

Blahface,

What are you advocating for? Approval voting or Rank order voting?

I have a huge problem with Approval voting, rooted primarily in the total subjective, unreliable, and arbitrary nature of the "approval" cutoff that will not only vary between people, but within a person from moment to moment. If a person prefers candidates 1 through 4 in that numerical order, how should they vote in an approval system?
They can vote any one of 5 ways and all would be equally sincere and valid in terms of reflecting that preference. They could "approve" all, or none, the top 3, top 2, or top 1. Where the "approval" cutoff is can be like thowing a dart. The result is that depending on what subjective cutoff voters with different preferences choose would determine the outcome.

I prefer approval voting. More specifically, I'd prefer a non-partisan primary that uses approval voting to get two candidates for the general election. I'm not a big fan of IRV ( I don't like calling it rank order voting as there are many different types of ranking systems), but it would be a step up from first-past-the-post. Since it is the only reform being offered up in Maine right now, I hope the ballot measure passes.

The thing I like about approval voting is that it is much better for issue advocacy. Let's say we have a political party called the Science Party that advocates for science. Under IRV, this party's candidate would be eliminated early on with maybe 5% of the vote and the party would have to put the Democrat ahead of the Republican on their preference list. The Science Party isn't going to have too much influence over the Democrats.

Under approval voting, the Science Party could endorse all the candidates it likes instead of just running a candidate. It could give a 5% direct boost to any candidate that earns their endorsement. There is a much greater incentive for all candidates to really pay attention to issues important to the Science Party.

Also, under approval voting, you can always support your favorite without being penalized. That is not quite true if you include the runoff with approval voting, but the penalty would be small in comparison to IRV or FPTP. Under IRV, the order of elimination matters. Good and otherwise electable candidates could get eliminated in the early rounds in favor of extremists who can't win in the later rounds. It has the same problem our primary elections have when the party elects someone who isn't viable in the general election.

 

[lpetrich]

There have never been two more unfavorable candidates running for President in American history. Unfortunately, these are the two candidates that we are a stuck with because if we vote for anyone else we are helping the candidate we hate most win.

This is a problem with our voting system that everyone seems to overlook. It is alarming that there is no public outcry to change the system or acknowledge that the problem even exists. Even progressive voices in the media like TYT who are so gungho about changing the system don't seem to see a problem with the way we elect candidates(other than money in politics). With the exception of CGPGrey, there aren't even any popular youtubers who are acknowledging this problem. ...

I don't see why this curious blind spot is supposed to be an indicator of mathematical illiteracy. But you are right that this problem exists, and that it is remarkably illogical. It seems to me that a LOT of people need an introduction to  Duverger's law.

I am immensely pissed off at the mathematical illiteracy of everyone.

Try consoling yourself with a big house and fancy car.

What a bullshit response. It does not even come close to addressing the OP's argument.

 

[bilby]

Blahface,

What are you advocating for? Approval voting or Rank order voting?

I have a huge problem with Approval voting, rooted primarily in the total subjective, unreliable, and arbitrary nature of the "approval" cutoff that will not only vary between people, but within a person from moment to moment. If a person prefers candidates 1 through 4 in that numerical order, how should they vote in an approval system?
They can vote any one of 5 ways and all would be equally sincere and valid in terms of reflecting that preference. They could "approve" all, or none, the top 3, top 2, or top 1. Where the "approval" cutoff is can be like thowing a dart. The result is that depending on what subjective cutoff voters with different preferences choose would determine the outcome.

I prefer approval voting. More specifically, I'd prefer a non-partisan primary that uses approval voting to get two candidates for the general election. I'm not a big fan of IRV ( I don't like calling it rank order voting as there are many different types of ranking systems), but it would be a step up from first-past-the-post. Since it is the only reform being offered up in Maine right now, I hope the ballot measure passes.

The thing I like about approval voting is that it is much better for issue advocacy. Let's say we have a political party called the Science Party that advocates for science. Under IRV, this party's candidate would be eliminated early on with maybe 5% of the vote and the party would have to put the Democrat ahead of the Republican on their preference list. The Science Party isn't going to have too much influence over the Democrats.

Under approval voting, the Science Party could endorse all the candidates it likes instead of just running a candidate. It could give a 5% direct boost to any candidate that earns their endorsement. There is a much greater incentive for all candidates to really pay attention to issues important to the Science Party.

Also, under approval voting, you can always support your favorite without being penalized. That is not quite true if you include the runoff with approval voting, but the penalty would be small in comparison to IRV or FPTP. Under IRV, the order of elimination matters. Good and otherwise electable candidates could get eliminated in the early rounds in favor of extremists who can't win in the later rounds. It has the same problem our primary elections have when the party elects someone who isn't viable in the general election.

The science party may be able to offer 5% of the vote for the support of their policies by a major party; but likely the racist party can offer 30%, the religious nutter party can offer 25%, the anti-vax party can offer 15%, and the conspiracy theorist party can offer 10%.

Be careful what you wish for.