Pickenup and all "lessor of two evils" haters.
Pickenup, I think you and I are the only two left here who, several years ago, tried to actually accomplish something out in the real world. If you remember, several of us were sick and tired of only, in effect, being offered time after time, two presidential candidates to vote for.
I said "in effect" even though there are around 30-some national political parties, and occasionally there will even be 1 or 2 presidential candidates offered to the voters that are not a Democrat or Republican (3 or 4th party candidate). But most Americans know that if they don't spend their one vote on either a Democrate or Republician, then they "in effect" have just thrown their vote away. Reason being that I don't know anyone alive today that can remember any 3rd or 4th party candidate ever winning a national election. And by voting for a 3rd or 4th party the voter will not only have possibly thrown their vote away, but by not voting for the Dem or Rep candidate that would be their second choice, by not sending their vote to that candidate, they have in effect helped the Dem or Rep candidate that they diffently did not want to win, to win.
So a few years ago, we tried to start a movement to whereas people could vote for more than one candidate. Sadly, our efforts fell flat. But I have just learned of an organization that has a better idea and is pushing it with some success. It is called IRV (Instant Runoff Voting) also known as RCV (Ranked Choice Voting). It is a great idea that is being used in such cities as Burlington, VT.
The way it works is that you can vote FOR ALL the candidates if you wish. You merely rank them from your first choice to your last choice. If your first choice comes in last, then your second choice will be used instead of your first choice. This process continues until one candidate has a majority.
By using this method you would, for the first time, let people vote for the candidate they really and truly want, without regard to anything else. This means that a political candidate could really take stands on various issues and be honest about it. In fact, this process could inject a whole lot of honesty into political campaigns. The voters could actually and freely vote for their first choice and the candidates could actually campaign in a straight-forward and honest manner.
If the inmates here on the Gun Rights Forum like this idea, I might introduce it in the General Forum. But if it looks like it will get shouted down, I am going to let the inmates on General remain ignorant.
For full details, go to:http://www.fairvote.org/irv/
I said "in effect" even though there are around 30-some national political parties, and occasionally there will even be 1 or 2 presidential candidates offered to the voters that are not a Democrat or Republican (3 or 4th party candidate). But most Americans know that if they don't spend their one vote on either a Democrate or Republician, then they "in effect" have just thrown their vote away. Reason being that I don't know anyone alive today that can remember any 3rd or 4th party candidate ever winning a national election. And by voting for a 3rd or 4th party the voter will not only have possibly thrown their vote away, but by not voting for the Dem or Rep candidate that would be their second choice, by not sending their vote to that candidate, they have in effect helped the Dem or Rep candidate that they diffently did not want to win, to win.
So a few years ago, we tried to start a movement to whereas people could vote for more than one candidate. Sadly, our efforts fell flat. But I have just learned of an organization that has a better idea and is pushing it with some success. It is called IRV (Instant Runoff Voting) also known as RCV (Ranked Choice Voting). It is a great idea that is being used in such cities as Burlington, VT.
The way it works is that you can vote FOR ALL the candidates if you wish. You merely rank them from your first choice to your last choice. If your first choice comes in last, then your second choice will be used instead of your first choice. This process continues until one candidate has a majority.
By using this method you would, for the first time, let people vote for the candidate they really and truly want, without regard to anything else. This means that a political candidate could really take stands on various issues and be honest about it. In fact, this process could inject a whole lot of honesty into political campaigns. The voters could actually and freely vote for their first choice and the candidates could actually campaign in a straight-forward and honest manner.
If the inmates here on the Gun Rights Forum like this idea, I might introduce it in the General Forum. But if it looks like it will get shouted down, I am going to let the inmates on General remain ignorant.
For full details, go to:http://www.fairvote.org/irv/
0
-
I like it.
I voted for Ross Perot - which was a vote for Clinton.
I don't ever want to make that mistake again !0 -
quote:Originally posted by nyforester
I like it.
I voted for Ross Perot - which was a vote for Clinton.
I don't ever want to make that mistake again !
In red above.
There ya' go. You are absoutely correct and it looks like the idea picked up one supporter at least. Spread it around.0 -
Indeed tr fox, this has a striking similarity to what we tried to start years ago, which fell on (for the most part) deaf ears at the time.
If only, this were to become the standard voting procedure nationally, I can't help but "hope" that things would change.0 -
Are you proposing a change to the US Constitution, the described method doesn't square with it? 0 -
quote:Originally posted by lt496
Are you proposing a change to the US Constitution, the described method doesn't square with it?
To finally, after over 200 years, free up voters from having to chose only one candidate, and therby reject all others, even ones they would happily take as a second choice, then yes. Change the US Constitution. But if you visit the website I have provided a link for, you will find that this method of voting is already in place and being used in a few cities.
Usually, if left to progress unfettered, if an idea is really good, it will spread by itself and will become unstoppable. But I wonder if you are on to something in that no one has suggested using this new voting method in federal elections (to my limited knowledge) but I don't believe the US Constitution can control how state and city elections/voting are handled. If that were the case we would not have those cities already using this alternative method of voting because the feds would have put a stop to it.
So, if the local elections, with the new voting method works, and works well, it will soon spread to many other city and state locations. Then, a natural progression would be to find some way to take it to the federal/national elections. It might be something as simple as declaring that the US Constitution really means "one citizen, one ballot." If that were the case, then a citizen would still be considered to have only voted once even if that citizen voted for every canidate on the ballot but ranked how the citizen was voting for those candidates. Since the citizen would only be handing in one ballot, it is possible that a new interpertation of the US Constitution would consider that one ballot as one vote. And basically that is what it would be because when the winning candidate is finally chosen, each citizens vote would have only counted once for that winning candidate.
So, what do you think?0 -
quote:nyforester
Senior Member
USA
1291 Posts
Posted - 01/19/2008 : 7:28:04 PM
I like it.
I voted for Ross Perot - which was a vote for Clinton.
I don't ever want to make that mistake again !
I disagree. If that was who you wanted, you voted your conscience. That requires a great deal of integrity, and I for one thank you for it, and wish everyone would follow your lead. Not doing what you did, is why we end up with trashier trash, every cycle.
tr, I loved the idea then, and I love it now. But getting the whole of America to come on board would be something akin to trying to swim up the Yangtzee River with both hands tied behind your back.0 -
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
quote:nyforester
Senior Member
USA
1291 Posts
Posted - 01/19/2008 : 7:28:04 PM
I like it.
I voted for Ross Perot - which was a vote for Clinton.
I don't ever want to make that mistake again !
I disagree. If that was who you wanted, you voted your conscience. That requires a great deal of integrity, and I for one thank you for it, and wish everyone would follow your lead. Not doing what you did, is why we end up with trashier trash, every cycle.
tr, I loved the idea then, and I love it now. But getting the whole of America to come on board would be something akin to trying to swim up the Yangtzee River with both hands tied behind your back.
True, unless it is cleary seen to work and be a great improvement over what we have had for over 200 years. I want to think that if my fellow Americans see an idea that can improve their lives, and is basically cost free, that you then could not keep them from adopting the idea even if you tried.0 -
The problem is, too many Americans (50% +) believe the ONLY way you could improve their lives is a bigger govt. handout in the mailbox next time they get off their lazy ass to go there. If we don't eliminate the illegal entitlement "vote buying" system, our situation is hopeless and will only get worse. 0 -
OK, guys... time to consider something else.
Here in Ohio during the last election cycle, we had a choice for Senate:
Mike DeWhine (RINO) who is a gun hater hiding behind his support of the 2nd Amendment only for the police.
or Sherrod Brown (D) who is also a gun hater, and yet, he hides nothing about it.
Who did I vote for? Larry the Cable Guy, that's who. Asking me what I would rather be shot with, a handgun or a shotgun, is not my idea of a choice. Neither is Hitlery/Osama or McStain a choice much different. If it comes down to it, I will side with McStain, because he is very likely to actually do what his Republican constituents want him to do, at least moreso than what we can expect by unashamed victim disarmers, and he is very likely to be clusterbombed by people just like me to keep him straight.
By the way, Sherrod Brown is now the Senator of Ohio, and my belief is that he is only there long enough to cycle a new, better Senator in his place, since Repubs didn't do this on their own. In 4 1/2 more years, he will be booted. So far, he hasn't been able to do too much damage so far.0 -
Doesn't matter what level of election, but one thing is VERY clear. We MUST hold our elected officials ACCOUNTABLE for their actions. I am sick and freaking tired of being lied to by the people my vote puts into office. If they don't do what they say they are going to do when I voted for them, then they need to be removed.
The Politicians in the US have GOT to be reminded that they answer to the citizenry of this great country.0 -
tech, it's very hard to answer to citizens when your financially beholden' to elite money. 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
11 comments