Article over at discover. Worth a look. Seems McCain would have won if we used a somewhat different system of voting.

http://www.discover.com/current_issue/index.html

From the index, scroll down to the voting article.

-- Anonymous, November 18, 2000

Answers

Interesting read, Paul. I particularly like the idea of the "approval voting method"...

Link

Approval voting, the simplest of the alternative methods, dates back to at least the 13th century, when Venetians used it to help elect their magistrates. It was subsequently reinvented many times, although it didn't acquire a name until 1976. In an approval vote, a person casts one vote for every candidate he or she considers qualified for the office. It's like an opinion poll, only the results are added up to determine a winner.

Though there are some very good arguments for implementing a new system such as this, I doubt we'll ever see it happen in our lifetimes. Too bad.

-- Anonymous, November 18, 2000

I had some somber thoughts after reading that article.

Chief among them was the fact that representative governments start breaking down when the voting population of the country grows beyond 25-30 million.

Could it be, the form of voting causes most voters to believe they are dienfranchised, and therefore creates a lack of trust in the system? Seems possible.

-- Anonymous, November 19, 2000

Interesting article. Makes a lot of good points, but I also disagree with some of the conclusions.

I think there are reasons why we still use 60's-era (or worse) technology in most precincts. Incumbent politicians accept elections as a necessary evil. Each election exposes them to removal from office (with the subsequent need to find a REAL job somewhere[g]).

They LIKE paper ballots. They LIKE the ability to challenge an election (Republican AND Democrat). To them, it's all just part of the Big Game. They don't WANT instant, verifiable and unassailable results on election night. They'd rather have an ace in the hole in a close election.

Therefore, we'd be lucky enough just to get some new technology in play (computers with touch-screens, say). It's very unlikely that the current crop of politicos would ever support an approval vote system. It would probably take a constitutional amendment to put it in place, anyway.

On the idea that democracies break down once the population gets too large: that's too simplistic. I don't agree. The founding fathers were surprisingly astute about things like this, which is why they set up the electoral college. It isn't a perfect system, but it does guarantee that smaller states won't be completely ignored by the national government.

The per-population selection of House representatives against the per-state selection of Senators also helps even things out in the long run. Checks and balances.

But Paul, it's all wasted effort, because the REAL problem is that there are many voters (I can't even say how many; 20%? 40%? Who knows?) who are arguably unqualified to exercise the franchise.

I don't mean "unqualified" in the sense of "illegal" (though THAT'S a growing problem, in and of itself). I mean that in the sense of intelligence and ability. At the very least, many voters do NOT take the time to learn where these candidates actually stand on the issues. They simply vote for the party, or the prettiest face, or whoever has the best-sounding voice.

Simply put: our elections have become popularity contests. Anytime you have universal sufferage, that's what happens, and an approval vote wouldn't change this; it would just be a different KIND of popularity contest. Most people would just decide to "approve" of the one whom they like the best (or just as often, DISAPPROVE of the guy they like the LEAST[g]).

My prescription?

1. Eliminate political parties. Thomas Jefferson, just to name one, would shout "hallelujiah" from the grave if we'd do this; he warned about party blocs right after the nation's founding. It wouldn't be easy; it would bring new problems of its own; but that one step would eliminate about half the abuse and petrification that we currently witness. Why in the world should we even HAVE a "Majority" and "Minority" leader in a Congress that's supposed to represent ALL of us?

2. TERM LIMITS. Across the board, no grandfathering for the fossils and cadavers who are currently in office, give 'em a set number of years and BOOT 'EM out. Trent Lott, Teddy Kennedy, I don't care who it is: when their time runs out, they find a new job, period.

3. Use something like an approval vote system, but leave the electoral college in place. Pass a constitutional amendment not only doing this, but requiring that states do NOT split their electoral votes (that defeats the whole purpose of the EC!); winner takes all.

4. Replace all of that old voting equipment with modern technology. (We could do it for a fraction of the federal budget; write One Big Check and do it all at once. Hey, it would even help out the technology stocks.[g]) I'd add a verification system to the software: the voter would see, on the screen, precisely WHO he/she had voted for. A confirmation screen would appear: "You have voted for Shamus McCrook, Lars Undertable and Jack Ripoff. Is this correct?" Click YES or NO to confirm. That eliminates arguments about the intent of the voter.

(Anyone who claimed, after going through all of this, that he'd been "mislead" or "confused," would justly get fitted for a Dunce cap and laughed out of town.)

There's my prescription. It doesn't have a snowball's chance, but that's how I'd do it. :)

-- Anonymous, November 19, 2000