|
The superior voting system is This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| First-past-the-post voting |
|
1 | 1.47% |
| Preferential voting (IRV) |
|
67 | 98.53% |
| Total: | 68 votes | ||
|
I'm not concerned about it. The governor has no say in certifying primaries, so they don't need him for the RCV results from this primary election. The governor has a constitutional obligation to proclaim the result of the referendum in ten days. If he doesn't, we have a genuine constitutional issue and the courts will have to make a decision - but the decision should be pretty easy. Was it a legitimate people's veto on the ballot? Yes. Did it pass? Yes. Is it literally required by the constitution for LePage to certify its passage? Yes.
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 07:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 11:16 |
|
|
Acolyte! posted:I'm not concerned about it. The governor has no say in certifying primaries, so they don't need him for the RCV results from this primary election. The governor has a constitutional obligation to proclaim the result of the referendum in ten days. If he doesn't, we have a genuine constitutional issue and the courts will have to make a decision - but the decision should be pretty easy. Was it a legitimate people's veto on the ballot? Yes. Did it pass? Yes. Is it literally required by the constitution for LePage to certify its passage? Yes. Yeah. This didn't surprise anyone in the state, since he has repeatedly refused to follow through on citizen's initiatives, bond bills, and all sorts of other popularly elected issues for seven years. We've had millions of dollars in matched federal money just sitting around doing nothing because he doesn't like the idea of spending money on roads. It's like he has a jealousy boner for every person or thing that gets more votes than he does (which is most of them). It's ironic that in refusing to certify the RCV results, he is creating a constitutional crisis by saying he is "protecting the state constitution." 
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 11:44
|
|
|
Update: The initiative to veto the legislature's delay of RCV passed, 54/46.  http://www.wabi.tv/content/news/June-2018-election-results-485283001.html
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 11:47
|
|
|
PT6A posted:This may not be quite what you meant, but that's how voting works in some single-party states like Cuba. You either vote for the person the communist party has selected for whatever post, or you vote against them and in theory, when a candidate is rejected by a majority of voters, the communist party selects someone else. That sounds more like a preemptive recall election, but how often do voters reject candidates in that system? I would presume that unless a candidate is particularly bad the election is just a formality. kustomkarkommando posted:Well the Irish implementation of STV does not mandate voters to preference all available candidates, unlike Australian IRV, and requires only a minimum of one preference for a vote to be valid - voters can an do refuse to preference candidates they oppose and can design their ballots to preference all candidates in opposition to a single one (then you start getting into STV tactics which some people find a con of system, where you can front load your ballot with high preferences for candidates who will finish low on first count to maximize their chances of inching ahead of fringe candidates you dislike to ensure they are eliminated early - say the second candidate of a given party being eliminated before the first party candidate is elected and a life saving surplus transferred down ticket from loyal voters). That is similar to what I was looking for. How much of an issue is "transfer toxicity" for Ireland, because kinda seems like its working as intended? I dont know how politically active or informed Irish voters are but for a politician to be that disliked by the voters seems like they would have to be pretty poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 04:18
|
|
|
IRV is a lot better than FPTP, but it still can come up with some surprising results. For instance, what happens in a three candidate race when the majority of the voters prefer A over B, and A over C?pre:4 CAB 4 CB 3 BAC ----------> 3 BC ----> C wins 2 ACB drop A 2 CB pre:Precinct 1 Precinct 2 Combined
Votes
6 ACB 6 CAB 6 ACB
4 BAC 4 BAC 8 BAC
3 CBA 3 ABC 3 CBA
6 CAB
B wins B wins 3 ABC
A wins
pre:10 ABC 10 AC 7 CAB ----------> 7 CA -----> C wins 6 BCA drop B 6 CA vs 8 ABC 8 AB 7 CAB ----------> 7 AB -----> A wins 8 BCA drop C 6 BA ASCII charts and demonstration logic shamelessly stolen from here. E: I forgot the weirdest one. Voting can cause your last-ranked candidate to win: pre:3 ABC 3 BC 4 BCA -- Drop A --> 4 BC B wins 6 CAB 6 CB What if two more ABC voters come out? 5 ABC 5 AC 4 BCA -- Drop B --> 4 CA C wins 6 CAB 6 CA Harik fucked around with this message at 04:06 on Jun 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 03:25
|
|
|
Rank-Choiced voting passed! And Janet Mills is now our governor hopeful! *states this two weeks late*
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 22:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 11:16 |
|
|
Harik posted:IRV is a lot better than FPTP, but it still can come up with some surprising results. Should note the first scenario is identical to FPTP (a C victory), so it's questionable whether the IRV outcome is actually a problem. The second one doesn't seem to be a problem at all because "districts" aren't real things that vote, people do, also it depends on some weird ordering of preferences that seem unlikely in real party politics. How likely is it that all B voters prefer A to C (indicating that A is closer ideologically to B than C is), but most A voters prefer C to B and a most C voters prefer B to A. Like if we assume A is a Center party, B are Democrats, and C are Republicans how likely is it that most Republicans prefer Democrats to Centrists. Or if we assume A is some further left party than B (Green say), how likely is it that most Greens would prefer Republicans to Democrats. The last two seem like even more unlikely constructed scenarios that would almost never happen in an election with thousands or millions of voters and in any case would take perfect information to game. And they also depend on some unlikely ranking of preferences (how likely is it that C voters also like A, but A voters hate C and B voters hate A), again if you instantiate those three with any real parties the preferences get pretty strange. Like I guess there are always populists out there who aren't ideological and just are attracted to the fringe so maybe they'd vote Bernie->Trump->Hillary but that's a pretty small number of people IRL whereas these scenarios require Bernie->Trump voters to be like 1/3 of the electorate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 23:49
|
|
