Ornot, someone...

F

FUCK THE POLICE

911 EVERY DAY
Could you please tell Damo that the method they used to elect the president in 1789 has absolutely nothing to do with proportional representation?

I can't get through to him. He has absolutely no idea at all what he's talking about and it's just annoying the hell out of me.

He randomly and haphazardly introduced the subject into a conversation we were having to try to insult me, but he apparently just made something up in his argment. I'm really baffled as to how he gets this. So, someone, please explain the concept to him.
 
Watermark said:
Could you please tell Damo that the method they used to elect the president in 1789 has absolutely nothing to do with proportional representation?

I can't get through to him. He has absolutely no idea at all what he's talking about and it's just annoying the hell out of me.

He randomly and haphazardly introduced the subject into a conversation we were having to try to insult me, but he apparently just made something up in his argment. I'm really baffled as to how he gets this. So, someone, please explain the concept to him.
Click to expand...



Grand Canyon calibre puss, really.
 
Don't delete it damo. Let everyone see the whiny baby's plea for help, from ornot the loser. LOL.
 
Watermark said:
Could you please tell Damo that the method they used to elect the president in 1789 has absolutely nothing to do with proportional representation?

I can't get through to him. He has absolutely no idea at all what he's talking about and it's just annoying the hell out of me.

He randomly and haphazardly introduced the subject into a conversation we were having to try to insult me, but he apparently just made something up in his argment. I'm really baffled as to how he gets this. So, someone, please explain the concept to him.
Click to expand...
I already told you that it wasn't proportional representation. You are being deliberately obtuse.
 
This thread is the equivalent of sticking your own bloody stump into the center of a mass of feeding sharks. LOL.
 
Damocles said:
I already told you that it wasn't proportional representation. You are being deliberately obtuse.
Click to expand...

"Proportional voting"?

What is that, then? I've heard "Proportional voting" mean proportional representation. It's never been described to me as an actual independent voting system.
 
Watermark said:
"Proportional voting"?

What is that, then? I've heard "Proportional voting" mean proportional representation. It's never been described to me as an actual independent voting system.
Click to expand...
When votes are counted proportionately to those casting them, then weighted by those proportions, you have voted proportionately.

Such systems are invariably confusing. Especially the ones you used to present. This is one of the simpler versions and the results were less than desirable and were thusly changed.

In this case you have multiple candidates, only two votes, and the two with the top votes won two different offices. It's a crappy system.
 
"When votes are counted proportionately to those casting them, then weighted by those proportions, you have voted proportionately."

That's the basis of all proportional representation systems, Damo. Even those that attribute proportions based on parties. You get the votes and you pass them through an apportionment quota so that the seats will be matched as closely as possible to the votes. That's actually how the apportion congressional seats amongst the states, too.

All I was doing was saying that people should cast rated ballots, and we should attribute those seats based on an apportionment quota, instead of taking them raw, which would mean that the majority would elect every seat. It's a base way of proportional representation, but it's very simple. A five member district wouldn't be necessarily very proportional, but the minority parties would win at least a few seats, the radical parties would win none. About five people is as big as the voter can be expected to keep up with the candidates, which is why most nations choose five member districts.

This is very much the same as STV, which is used throughout the world with little complaint. The problem with giving people just one vote to decide amongst multiple candidates is that the minority will be OVERREPRESENTED, instead of proportionally represented.

In a two-member district, you'd get two people of opposite parties. That's the same thing as if you had a two-member district a pary-list system. You'd get the two biggest parties.

The presidential system didn't have anything to do with this, though. People had two votes to elect two people. The plurality would elect both members. The opposition wouldn't get anything.
 
Watermark said:
"When votes are counted proportionately to those casting them, then weighted by those proportions, you have voted proportionately."

That's the basis of all proportional representation systems, Damo. Even those that attribute proportions based on parties. You get the votes and you pass them through an apportionment quota so that the seats will be matched as closely as possible to the votes. That's actually how the apportion congressional seats amongst the states, too.

All I was doing was saying that people should cast rated ballots, and we should attribute those seats based on an apportionment quota, instead of taking them raw, which would mean that the majority would elect every seat. It's a base way of proportional representation, but it's very simple. A five member district wouldn't be necessarily very proportional, but the minority parties would win at least a few seats, the radical parties would win none. About five people is as big as the voter can be expected to keep up with the candidates, which is why most nations choose five member districts.

This is very much the same as STV, which is used throughout the world with little complaint. The problem with giving people just one vote to decide amongst multiple candidates is that the minority will be OVERREPRESENTED, instead of proportionally represented.

In a two-member district, you'd get two people of opposite parties. That's the same thing as if you had a two-member district a pary-list system. You'd get the two biggest parties.

The presidential system didn't have anything to do with this, though. People had two votes to elect two people. The plurality would elect both members. The opposition wouldn't get anything.
Click to expand...
However, in those systems it is the representation, not the vote that is weighted.

If you are voting for more than one candidate, as in any of your examples, and the result is figured proportionately you wind up with crap. I don't want to vote for my "third choice" by default because he was the third choice on more ballots than any other....

Are you getting the difference yet? Each of those people vote for one person, then they get representation to match their first choice. In your scenarios, all of them, my first choice can never get in. That sucks ass.
 
"However, in those systems it is the representation, not the vote that is weighted. "

Damo, there's no difference. If you weighted the votes directly in a party list system, you would get the same results as if you weighted the vote totals. Weighting the vote totals directly is a shortcut.
 
"If you are voting for more than one candidate, as in any of your examples, and the result is figured proportionately you wind up with crap."

Gee you're a great debater Damo.

"I don't want to vote for my "third choice" by default because he was the third choice on more ballots than any other...."

Damo, how do you think a voting system works? Do you think you just plop some stuff down on a ballot, magic happens, and the votes come out that make everyone happy?

Of course in the system you shouldn't vote for a ridiculously popular candidate who you know is going to win.

But what's the alternative as far as systems go? Party list, where you have absolutely no choice as to what candidates you can select? STV, which is so complicated that it hides massive flaws? Should we just give every person one vote, which would give out the same results as if everyone just voted for one person under my system?

There's no perfect voting system. My system gives you direct control over your vote. It doesn't try to accomplish anything through an arbitrary mechanical process. All you have to do is to vote for your favorite. If you think you can help three candidates to win, you can vote for three. Smaller parties will only even run one candidate. You have freedom under my system.

Yes, what you've pointed out are flaws. But compare them to all the other flaws in all the other systems in the world. All my requires you to do is to pay attention - the other systems don't even give you a choice. Take STV, for instance. Like IRV, under STV you can hurt a candidate by ranking him higher. Under my system, you can never hurt a candidate by voting for him. And unlike party list, you can choose to vote or not vote for various candidates. Tell me how the minor flaws you mentioned, that are easy to combat, are any greater than THAT.

"Are you getting the difference yet? Each of those people vote for one person, then they get representation to match their first choice. In your scenarios, all of them, my first choice can never get in. That sucks ass."

Don't vote for anyone else who's likely to win then. Vote for your first choice over if your side is so pitifully represented.

Your candidate has no chance under our current system. You can't vote for your candidate under party list. Under STV, you're hurting your candidate by putting him first.
 
We even debating this, Damo? This is a non-issue. We may as well debate whether or not the Iraq war should end in 24 or 32 hours.

Look, at that great proportional representation convention someodd years in the future, you can go "Hey, I want party list!", and I can go "Hey guys, I want this", and after that's defeated, I'll probably go over to the STV camp. But right now it just amounts to an infuriating and pointless series of rambles on both sides.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top