Electability as a reason for choosing a canditate

[Lusankya]

With the primaries on, I hear the word "electability" being thrown around a lot as a reason for voting for candidate A, B or C. To me, this sounds like voting for your second choice because you don't think your first choice has a good chance of winning. This isn't an issue in Australia, because we have a preferential voting system which allows us to express these preferences at the ballot box, but obviously Americans don't have this opportunity.

So my question to Americans is: don't you feel bad that you have to base your voting on what other people's opinions rather than your own?

[Darth Smiley]

Not really. Compromise is important in a democracy. If the you agreed with candidate A on most issues, but some other major demographic really hates one of A's positions, supporting candidate B who you don't like quite as much but is more appealing is a sound, and democratic, thing to do. That way no matter who gets elected, they (and their positions) have to be acceptable to everyone.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

My opinion is 'Electability' is a fiat property determined by the MSM as to who they like and will tilt the playing field to favor. Since the MSM is bought and paid for my Monied Interests, it stands to reason only the most pro-corporate anti-citizen candidates will get high Electability scores.

[Lusankya]

Can you enlighten me as to how exactly being forced to vote for somone despite them not being your first choice is sound and democratic?

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Oh that's easy. It's not. It's the Establishment getting one over on you for not being a part of the Rich White Christian Male Power Structure.

[Darth Wong]

Can you enlighten me as to how exactly being forced to vote for somone despite them not being your first choice is sound and democratic?

It's sound and strategic. Democracy is merely a system in which one must work in certain countries, but strategy has been necessary through all of history. There's nothing unusual in making choices based on strategic thinking. People do that sort of thing all the time in their lives. Do I take the job that I think I will love the most, or the one that makes the most sense? Do I eat the foods that I love the most, or the one that won't put me onto an operating table at the age of 40?

[Lusankya]

Can you enlighten me as to how exactly being forced to vote for somone despite them not being your first choice is sound and democratic?

It's sound and strategic. Democracy is merely a system in which one must work in certain countries, but strategy has been necessary through all of history. There's nothing unusual in making choices based on strategic thinking. People do that sort of thing all the time in their lives. Do I take the job that I think I will love the most, or the one that makes the most sense? Do I eat the foods that I love the most, or the one that won't put me onto an operating table at the age of 40?

Yeah, but under my system, I can vote for my first choice, and then allocate my preferences so that if my first choice doesn't get voted in, then my vote goes to my second choice. Essentially I can have my cake and eat it too. I don't have to worry about how other people will vote in order to make my vote relevant, because even if my candidate only gets 5 votes, I get to tell the AEC to give my vote to the candidate who I think will fuck up the country the least. How is that not better?

[Darth Wong]

That's a nice system, but nobody was saying that the American system was better. The problem was that you were saying it wasn't even democratic, which doesn't make sense.

[Lusankya]

That's a nice system, but nobody was saying that the American system was better. The problem was that you were saying it wasn't even democratic, which doesn't make sense.

That was me expressing myself poorly. I meant that it doesn't seem to be a sound way of running a democracy. I mean, sure my preferences will generally go to one of the major party candidates, but that's only after I've effectively done a survey of every registered voter in my electorate, as opposed to just using my gut feeling as to where the votes will go.

Of course, since I've grown up with preferential voting, and have a good understanding of the importance of preferences, I'd feel disgruntled if I had to use a system like the American one, and I was wondering if Americans felt at all chafed.

[brianeyci]

I don't like preferential systems.

For one, weighting how much a 1st choice is worth compared to a second choice is completely arbitrary. Are two second choices worth as much as a first choice? Three? Four? Five? Don't kid yourself by thinking it is mathematical, because it isn't.

As for electability, that is an issue in leadership conventions or party primaries, but it isn't in modern progressive democracies. Progressive democracies regularly form a government with less than 30% of the popular vote, so you can vote for who you want unless it is so fucking close that your vote will matter. And if it matters, why not pick your number one choice?

First-past-the-post also has the advantage of creating strong majorities, which are generally needed to pass legislation. Proportional respresentation has a whole slew of problems that would be a hijack if I wrote them out, but the most egregious is old boys network, since proportional representation creates "party lists" which party stalwarts with seniority get the proportioned seats first.

[Lusankya]

I don't like preferential systems.

For one, weighting how much a 1st choice is worth compared to a second choice is completely arbitrary. Are two second choices worth as much as a first choice? Three? Four? Five? Don't kid yourself by thinking it is mathematical, because it isn't.

Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about. A second preference is worth exactly one vote, but is counted after your first preference has been eliminated due to your first choice either having the lowest number of votes, or (in the senate) having reached their quota.

As for electability, that is an issue in leadership conventions or party primaries, but it isn't in modern progressive democracies. Progressive democracies regularly form a government with less than 30% of the popular vote, so you can vote for who you want unless it is so fucking close that your vote will matter. And if it matters, why not pick your number one choice?

Well, as an example, let's say that there are three main candidates for a presidential election. For the sake of argument, let's call them Bush, Gore and Nader...

2.7% of voters like Nader the best, but would probably vote for Gore if Nader wasn't running. In the end, Bush gets 48% of the vote, Gore gets 47.4% of the vote and Nader gets 2.7% of the vote (various others get a total of 2% of the vote). Now the Bush people are happy, but the people who voted for Gore (47.4%) are unhappy, as are the people who voted for Nader (2.7), because now their LEAST favourite candidate has won the election. So all in all 50.1% of the voting population is unhappy with the result of the election, and additionally, the 2.7% of people who voted for Nader have the added burden of wondering whether or not they did wrong by voting for their favourite candidate.

Of course, that's just a hypothetical example that I pulled out of my arse, and would never ever happen in real life, right?

First-past-the-post also has the advantage of creating strong majorities, which are generally needed to pass legislation. Proportional respresentation has a whole slew of problems that would be a hijack if I wrote them out, but the most egregious is old boys network, since proportional representation creates "party lists" which party stalwarts with seniority get the proportioned seats first.

Actually, in Australia we find that proportional representation allows minor parties such as the Democrats and the Greens to gain seats in parliament, which allows them to work with the government to pass legislation, but with checks and balances to ensure that they don't just go insane with power. One of the reasons Howard lost government last year was because he had a majority in both houses of parliamant, and as such, the Liberals were able to pass any bill they wanted unamended, including several unpopular bills such as Work Choices and VSU.

Proportional representation helps these minor parties to become established, because people know that even if they vote for the minor party rather than their least hated major party, their vote won't effectively turn into half a vote for the party they least want to gain power.

[brianeyci]

Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about. A second preference is worth exactly one vote, but is counted after your first preference has been eliminated due to your first choice either having the lowest number of votes, or (in the senate) having reached their quota.

There are many kinds of preferential systems. The one I'm thinking of is a straight ballot with one two three four written beside candidates. Elimination of candidates can only occur with more than one round of voting, infeasible for a general election, or some complicated and difficult to understand system involving elimination based on knocking off everybody until there's only two people left, without giving people a chance to alter their vote based on who's left. You say this is terrible, since it is strategy and manipulation, but I say it's a part of life -- life is often about trade offs.

You make the claim, it's your job to explain not mine to know before.

Well, as an example, let's say that there are three main candidates for a presidential election. For the sake of argument, let's call them Bush, Gore and Nader...

2.7% of voters like Nader the best, but would probably vote for Gore if Nader wasn't running. In the end, Bush gets 48% of the vote, Gore gets 47.4% of the vote and Nader gets 2.7% of the vote (various others get a total of 2% of the vote). Now the Bush people are happy, but the people who voted for Gore (47.4%) are unhappy, as are the people who voted for Nader (2.7), because now their LEAST favourite candidate has won the election. So all in all 50.1% of the voting population is unhappy with the result of the election, and additionally, the 2.7% of people who voted for Nader have the added burden of wondering whether or not they did wrong by voting for their favourite candidate.

Of course, that's just a hypothetical example that I pulled out of my arse, and would never ever happen in real life, right?

So what? Governments are formed with minority amounts all over the developed world. If the government has proper checks and balances, Bush will not be able to do whatever the hell he wants, since he'll have to deal with an opposition with more of the popular vote.

I seen no reason why populism should be a great indicator of a more vibrant democracy. Populism often installs people who appeal to the lowest common denominator more than anything, like Hugo Chavez. In any working democracy, the minority rules the majority.

Actually, in Australia we find that proportional representation allows minor parties such as the Democrats and the Greens to gain seats in parliament, which allows them to work with the government to pass legislation, but with checks and balances to ensure that they don't just go insane with power. One of the reasons Howard lost government last year was because he had a majority in both houses of parliamant, and as such, the Liberals were able to pass any bill they wanted unamended, including several unpopular bills such as Work Choices and VSU.

Proportional representation helps these minor parties to become established, because people know that even if they vote for the minor party rather than their least hated major party, their vote won't effectively turn into half a vote for the party they least want to gain power.

So what if they gained seats? As far as I'm concerned, minor parties being established is a deteriment, as they are often focused on one issue to the detriment of all others. Communists, libertarians, marijuania, and so on. The more political parties, the more convoluted the system can be, with wheeling and dealing behind the scenes. The optimum number is probably three or four. The Romans thought two leaders was the best. I would argue that three or four is great, because it allows for one party to be in power, one to form a strong opposition, and one to be the maverick party ready to replace the opposition. The gain of minor parties is often illusionary, as you need to form coalitions to get legislation passed or nothing happens.

If you dislike political parties, the solution is like in Nunavut Province in Canada, where there are no political parties. Then the locals elect candidates, and the candidates among themselves vote in a Prime Minister. If you want parties, three or four is the best, not twenty or thirty wasting taxpayers dollars on special interests. Can you tell the difference between six political parties? Seven? Eight? Ten? I see no reason why many political parties is akin to more democracy or better democracy.

[brianeyci]

ghetto edit: By the way, my point about the arbitrary weighting of choices is still valid. You pick a number one, it's worth more than a number two and number three, effectively giving your number one more weight. Knocking off the bottom is a completely arbitrary choice, therefore proving my point. What if the bottom has zero first round picks, but an overwhelming number of second round picks? Well then, according to the way you explained it, the bottom is shit out of luck, because the bottom would be eliminated. I fail to see how this is any more democratic.

So a second preference is not worth one vote, not in that context of weighting.

[Metatwaddle]

As I see it, the biggest problem with the ranking-preferences system is that it assumes that people will be completely earnest and sincere about who their choices are. They won't; they'll strategically vote to make other near-frontrunners do badly. Let's say we had that in the Democratic primaries. Obama might get more votes than anyone else, but all the Hillary people and the Edwards people put him as their last choice in an attempt to bolster their own candidate's chances, and next thing you know Bill Richardson wins the whole thing because he's everyone's second choice. And things could get even weirder in the general election, when the outside candidates are going to be a lot less sane than Bill Richardson.

[Lusankya]

There are many kinds of preferential systems. The one I'm thinking of is a straight ballot with one two three four written beside candidates. Elimination of candidates can only occur with more than one round of voting, infeasible for a general election, or some complicated and difficult to understand system involving elimination based on knocking off everybody until there's only two people left, without giving people a chance to alter their vote based on who's left. You say this is terrible, since it is strategy and manipulation, but I say it's a part of life -- life is often about trade offs.

You make the claim, it's your job to explain not mine to know before.

The system I'm thinking of is Instant Runoff Voting. Since people have already made their preferences, it doesn't matter who's left, since their vote will go to whichever of the two they gave a higher preference too. If the two candidates left are the ones I ranked 3 and 4 then my vote will go to the candidate who I ranked number 3. Presumably, I did that because I liked them more than I liked the one I ranked 4, so if it was a two-candidate election, then I would vote for them.

Of course, there are other preferential voting systems, and I prefer them ALL to first-past-the-post.

So what? Governments are formed with minority amounts all over the developed world. If the government has proper checks and balances, Bush will not be able to do whatever the hell he wants, since he'll have to deal with an opposition with more of the popular vote.

So it's ok for there to be flaws in the voting system because there are checks and balances in parts of the system which have absolutely nothing to do with voting? Nice red herring there, mister. I suppose it's ok if you give me the plague, because we can fix it with antibiotics.

I seen no reason why populism should be a great indicator of a more vibrant democracy. Populism often installs people who appeal to the lowest common denominator more than anything, like Hugo Chavez. In any working democracy, the minority rules the majority.

Yeah, and I heard that freedom is about authority too. In any working democracy, there are enough safeguards that minority interests can be served, but the minority does NOT rule the majority. You just quoted the exact opposite of the word democracy.

So what if they gained seats? As far as I'm concerned, minor parties being established is a deteriment, as they are often focused on one issue to the detriment of all others. Communists, libertarians, marijuania, and so on. The more political parties, the more convoluted the system can be, with wheeling and dealing behind the scenes. The optimum number is probably three or four. The Romans thought two leaders was the best. I would argue that three or four is great, because it allows for one party to be in power, one to form a strong opposition, and one to be the maverick party ready to replace the opposition.

A modicum of relevance actually helps minor parties to calm down a bit. They can harp on about one issue all they like, but the moment they get some power, they tend to develop some actual policies. Minor parties being established also helps to break the "old boys' club" that you were complaining about before, because to run as an independet or for a minor party, you don't have to spend nearly as long sucking Republican cock to get your name on a ballot paper.

The gain of minor parties is often illusionary, as you need to form coalitions to get legislation passed or nothing happens.

Can you explain to me how this is necessarily a bad thing?

If you dislike political parties, the solution is like in Nunavut Province in Canada, where there are no political parties. Then the locals elect candidates, and the candidates among themselves vote in a Prime Minister. If you want parties, three or four is the best, not twenty or thirty wasting taxpayers dollars on special interests. Can you tell the difference between six political parties? Seven? Eight? Ten? I see no reason why many political parties is akin to more democracy or better democracy.

You're confusing the number of political parties with the ability of minor parties to gain status. I'm not suggesting that any system needs six or ten minor parties. What I am suggesting is that if a minor party exists, then the system should be set up so that voters may vote for the minor party without having to worry about splitting the vote of the candidate they would otherwise have voted for.

[Lusankya]

As I see it, the biggest problem with the ranking-preferences system is that it assumes that people will be completely earnest and sincere about who their choices are. They won't; they'll strategically vote to make other near-frontrunners do badly. Let's say we had that in the Democratic primaries. Obama might get more votes than anyone else, but all the Hillary people and the Edwards people put him as their last choice in an attempt to bolster their own candidate's chances, and next thing you know Bill Richardson wins the whole thing because he's everyone's second choice. And things could get even weirder in the general election, when the outside candidates are going to be a lot less sane than Bill Richardson.

Personally I'd do away with the entire stupid Primaries fiasco altoghether. Just put all the possible candidates down on a ballot on eleciton day, and people can rank them how they see fit.

And I think you're thinking of a completely different preferential voting system to the one I'm thinking of. In instant run-off, I could vote 1 Hillary, 2 Richardson, 3 Edwards and 4 Obama, and my Hillary vote would remain until Hillary was the candidate with the lowest number of votes (so presumably until the three candidates left were Hillary, Edwards and Obama). Then, since richardson had already been eliminated, my vote would go to Edwards. Note how it doesn't matter whether I put Edwards and Obama at 3&4 or whether I put them at 7&8. my vote would still go to Edwards.

ghetto edit: By the way, my point about the arbitrary weighting of choices is still valid. You pick a number one, it's worth more than a number two and number three, effectively giving your number one more weight.

So a second preference is not worth one vote, not in that context of weighting.

Erm... ok. I'm not sure what you're complaining about here. Are you saying that the fact that your second and third preference votes aren't counted until your first preference is eliminated is some kind of flaw, because your second and third preferences aren't counted at all? And this is a problem somehow, even though anyone whose second etc. preferences aren't being counted is someone who's getting their first choice voted in?

Knocking off the bottom is a completely arbitrary choice, therefore proving my point. What if the bottom has zero first round picks, but an overwhelming number of second round picks? Well then, according to the way you explained it, the bottom is shit out of luck, because the bottom would be eliminated. I fail to see how this is any more democratic.

Strangely enough, this rarely seems to be a problem, as a large proporiton of second preference votes are never counted on account of the voters first preference remaining relevant.

[brianeyci]

I suppose it's ok if you give me the plague, because we can fix it with antibiotics.

You're assuming that first-past-the-post is sickness. I don't see it as sickness. I see it as a stable, traditional system which has a long history in our country. I see the parties who whine about it the most, and the people who whine about it the most, as the people who always get the least votes and there's no reason to think that if they got the most votes they wouldn't prefer or need a stronger government to pass their legislation. I see less minority governments and more majority governments as a definite asset. Another thing I should mention is I see an elected senate as retarded, as two levels of government which are both elected is just a waste, but that is an issue for a different thread.

In any working democracy, there are enough safeguards that minority interests can be served, but the minority does NOT rule the majority. You just quoted the exact opposite of the word democracy.

We're just arguing about the meaning of the word rule. If there are three parties, each in a deadlocked heat, then it will end up a party without fifty percent of the vote as first picks will become the rulers. If you don't like the word rule, I don't really care -- pick another word that means you can choose cabinet ministers, command the military and set the agenda of the country for the next term. Sixty six percent of voters if this was the case would be ruled by a party which did not have the majority of citizens choose it as their first pick.

Can you explain to me how this is necessarily a bad thing?

It depends on the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Judiciary. If the founding documents are sound and the branches of government are independent, then the politicians are there to pass as much legislation as possible, that being their job. Being afraid of the politicians passing too many laws is frankly stupid unless your founding documents are so stupid they can pass bullshit laws. Government is a slow, bureaucratic process and I have never heard anybody complain about laws in general getting passed to quickly, but many bills simply die due to lack of time. A majority helps bills pass, and if you are afraid bills can be repealed, except in the case where bills take away civil rights like the Patriot. And if that happens it really should be the judiciary that quashes the Patriot, and even then it can still be repealed.

A major problem with populism is the people don't really know what's good for them. In fact, I would say they never know since they always act in their best personal interests and not in the overall interest. If it were 100% up to the people, there would be no tax raises, ever, because the mob is short-sighted. See Florida, where citizens propositions tie the hands of government to raise taxes so they're stuck between making bad decisions by cutting services, or going deeper in debt, or see the Simpsons episode which makes fun of propositions. Majority governments help governments pass bills which are incredibly unpopular, but over time the people might just get it in their thick skulls that the change was needed. If it is really that big of an issue, they can overturn the government next election, and if it isn't they can just swallow it. For example, free trade between Canada and the US was incredibly unpopular, but people learned to accept it. So was the goods and services tax. The government was overturned because it made the tax, and the opposition promised to remove it, but they eventually broke their promise since the tax was incredibly useful. In sum, majority governments compensate for the short-sightedness and incredible stupidity of the human race.

Besides, I don't have to show mine is a good thing and yours is a bad thing. I only have to say it's probable legislation gets held up and the government accomplishes nothing, or even possible. You made the claim, so why don't you show that slow moving government with many elections and little laws passed is necessarily better.

I'm not suggesting that any system needs six or ten minor parties.

Come on man. A consequence of your proposal is more parties will get representation in the legislature, and that is always the reason d'etre behind the mixed proportional or run-off voting, so whether you like it or not you are advocating more political parties.

The largest problem I see with this one two three four idea is the very premise that political parties can be ranked this way and that such a ranking is even beneficial. It's akin to assuming that in science fiction there's a power ladder or power scale where you can just slot in x > y > z > ... and keep going like that. Some parties are good at some things and some at other things, and the public must make a choice based on trade offs. Even the Political Compass has an x-axis and a y-axis, a plane and not a spectrum. Maybe I'll invent a system where someone can pick a party's location in a three dimensional cube, each axis arbitrarily representing social, economic and internal government issues. You could rotate the cube with a mouse on a touch screen and pick where in the cube you want your picks to go. Then you would list the most important issues as a second part of voting, and based on that they would eliminate losers in different positions of the cube. Doesn't mean the cube is any better of a system than a simple first-past-the-post.

Strangely enough, this rarely seems to be a problem, as a large proporiton of second preference votes are never counted on account of the voters first preference remaining relevant.

Yeah well the point remains: sixty-six percent could pick candidate B as their second pick, really meaning that they want him there all the way to the end, but he gets eliminated because he doesn't appeal to a broad enough base of voters as a first pick. In other words, a bastardized version of first-past-the-post, instead just propping up many more posts and rewarding populist leaders who still need to get as many first picks as possible.

[brianeyci]

Bill : "So if you had to choose between Obama and Richardson, who would you choose?"

Stacey : "I don't know. I'd like to pick a bit of Obama, I like his immigration policy. I like Richardson's defense ideas."

Bill : "Sure, but who would you choose?"

Stacey : "Hm. Too bad we can't take a bit of Obama and a bit of Richardson."

Bill (facepalm) : "Um, that's not really possible. Only one person can be President. So who would you choose?"

Stacey : "I dunno. Maybe Obama can be number 1 and Richardson number 2. Or maybe the other way around."

In short, when you pick a candidate you are picking all of his values and not half of him and half of another guy. Stacey is better off just not voting instead of giving her the illusion you can cherry pick parts of policy. Like Obama in all things except one nagging thing? Well tough, mix and match doesn't exist and a politician comes with all the baggage. Ranking candidates sure doesn't force them to work together.

Like Discombobulated says, it assumes people make rational choices. People who can't handle choosing one sure can't handle choosing one two three four.