Cenk Uygur and approval voting

[blahface]

I think one of the most important things we can do to make politicians more accountable is to replace plurality voting with approval voting. Right now virtually everyone hates the Democrats and the Republicans, but because of vote splitting, they can't vote for anyone else because they fear it would be throwing their vote away. If we are ever going to get rid of our two party system and make elections competitive, we need to get rid of plurality voting and ensure that third party candidates don't act as spoilers.

I do not understand how most people cannot see this and it frustrates me to no end that Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks never talks about this. It is so clear that he is disgusted by the Democrats, but he will tell us that we still need to vote for them because the Republicans are much worse. And yet, he never talks about changing the system that makes it so hard to hold politicians accountable.

After the Canadian election, he used the vote splitting that lead to the conservative party victory as an example of why the US shouldn’t have multiple parties. His conclusion wasn't that we should change our voting system so there is no vote splitting – it was, we should just not have more than two parties.

Wednesday, Cenk is taking questions from facebook. I made this comment to ask him why he never talks about alternative voting systems. Please “like” it so it is rated up and it has a better chance of being read live. I am really curious why he never addresses the issue.

[Darth Fanboy]

The following are just my opinions.

The reason why third parties don't work? Because everyone is too afraid to "throw their vote away" rather than put in the time and effort it would take to get one going, and the immediate gratification of voting for a successful candidate will be denied to them. The mentality that one is "throwing their vote away" isn't entirely true. If I were to vote for Barack Obama this year it would basically be me voting against the Republicans than voting for the Democrats. The American public has been so disappointed and let down by their government that we expect so little and we feed these ideologies as a result. Unfortunately this results in compromises being made by individual voters. "Oh I don't like Obama because he let me down on (example) but he's better than (GOP nominee) because he isn't Republican." This goes on both sides of the aisle and really if the public felt there wasn't the risk of one side taking advantage, I think both Democrats and Republicans could split into more moderate and extreme parties.

The dominance of the two party system has produced horrible candidates that spend more time pandering than getting the job done but since Perot's movement failed there hasn't been anyone with the combination of money and balls to step up and go independent.

[madd0ct0r]

Also, given the 'anyone but them' mentality, neither the right nor the left could afford a second party on their turf.

eg. Teaparty splits from republicans, forming a new ultra right party. Suddenly, the republicans have lost a portion of their vote and would be unable to defeat the democrats.

or following a series of national disasters, the greens become a third party - they might pick up some republicans from those who live out in the countryside and value it, but the bulk of their recruits would be democrat. Thus the democrats are at a disadvantage against the repubs and loose.

It'd only work if you could get a third party up and running in the space between the two big parties.

[Flagg]

The problem is Presidential elections. You could easily have a third party that could form a coalition in congress.

[Spoonist]

@madd0ct0r & Darth Fanboy
You are missing what the OP wants to discuss. Check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting
Its a system which doesn't hurt as much when having splinter groups.

@blahface
I like it better the way the french does their presidential elections:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-round_system

However I think that american politics is to juvenile to handle any such big system change. Even the ovious flaws in the current election system given the Bush vs Gore election cycle didn't even result in enough of a debate nor public outrage to actually make any changes at all. Don't even get me started on the retarded register to vote system.
Also given how the US handles voting machines and vote counting makes it highly suspect with an Approval voting system. Its a system which is very easy to introduce cheating in.
Its just a depressing fact of life that US political system is screwed due to its implementation and transformation by the two ruling parties. Where those parties in power have little to no interest in changing the way its done, rather the opposite.

[Terralthra]

I prefer instant run-off voting to approval voting, if only because it avoids failing the Condorcet loser criterion.

[Lord Zentei]

I'm pretty sure that instant runoff voting does not satisfy the Condorcet criterion. You might want to use Copeland's method instead.

BTW: the problem with changing the voting method is obviously that the main parties would never go for it, and it's their approval that is needed for any real change. Obviously, they wouldn't want to "rock the boat" since that way they would lose out. I'm talking about national elections here, local elections might be a different story.

[Darth Fanboy]

@madd0ct0r & Darth Fanboy
You are missing what the OP wants to discuss. Check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting
Its a system which doesn't hurt as much when having splinter groups.

I didn't miss anything, any progress including instituting a new election system would take a lot of inertia and effort that American voters are incapable of mustering at this time, which was exactly what my post was getting at. A new election procedure unless I am mistaken would require changes to the constitution, which would take just as much work if not far more than forming a political party. As I said there is nobody with the money and desire to spearhead this. Ross Perot had made the most credible attempt in many years and ultimately fizzled out.

So before you talk about approval voting and whether or not a relatively obscure (internet popular I guess) news guy from Youtube cares about it, you have to understand why it is that despite the public's overwhelming disdain for the government for the last 15-20 years or so that the old system still goes uncontested.

[blahface]

IRV satisfies the Condorcet loser criterion, but not the Condorcet criterion.

I think approval voting would be the easiest alternative voting systems to implement. It is easy to understand and you can use the same punch card machines that we do now. Ideally, I think the Condorcet method would be the best system, but it would be nightmare to implement and explain to the average person. Approval voting is good enough and is the best method to get our foot in the door.

Also, there should be open non-partisan primaries with approval voting and the two most approved candidates should go onto the general election. That way we can choose between the two best candidates as opposed to a plurality runoff in which you can get two schmucks due to the vote splitting.

I don't think changing the voting system is some impossible pie in the sky pipe dream. It would have to be done on a state by state basis, and right now, Rhode Island has passed a bill to put together a commission to study different voting systems and recommend legislation. Hopefully, that will get us a little bit closer.

I think what we really need to do though is to start a big tent political party with the only issue being implementing approval voting. We need to make it clear that getting rid of plurality voting is the most important issue and after we get over this hump we can then have an all out war on each other without having to worry about spoilers. We could raise money nationally and focus all our resources on a small state to become a power house in that concentrated area. Once we have victory in one state, word of mouth will spread and it will be easier to get it done in other states. We can also raise awareness by having annual protests of plurality voting at each state capitol.

[Terralthra]

I'm pretty sure that instant runoff voting does not satisfy the Condorcet criterion. You might want to use Copeland's method instead.

Loser, not winner. I have particular tastes.