Vote swapping

Fenris · Postby **Fenris** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:51 pm

dammit... what am i doing wrong with those BLEEEPING quotes?  <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'>Quote: </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> And the accusation stands.</td></tr></table>  Fenris: One what grounds? You may as well accuse the candidates of not playing fair by not campaigning in states that are already locked.  <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'>Quote: </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> Asked and answered. I have fulfilled my case. If you cannot understand what I have been writing here so far and have to resort to repeating the question as though I had not written anything, then there is nothing repeating my answer again is going to change. Go back to the other posts you glossed over and read</td></tr></table> . Fenris: there is nothing wrong with my reading comprehension. I am simply not falling for your bait and switch tactic (see below). You are the one who seemed to miss the fact that i was looking for a 3rd party supporter who didn't want bush to win and accused me of assuming that would be the case.  <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'>Quote: </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> It appears as though you are saying that a person is not giving up a vote by trading with you because you will be making that person's vote in your state. It is not an even trade.</td></tr></table>  Fenris: AHEM.. you accused me of taking away a persons RIGHT to vote. Not throwing away their vote. there is a difference. Of course i am taking their vote.. thats why its called vote SWAPPING. They give me their vote and i give them mine. Here are some ways to feel about the election 1) I like kerry 2) I dislike bush enough to vote for kerry (me here) 3) I would like to vote for ralph nader but he can't win so i'll vote for kerry 4) I'm going to vote for ralph nader but i'm afraid my lack of vote for kerry will put bush back in the whitehouse 5) I'm voting for nader 6) I'm voting for bush I'm trying to urge person 4 up to type 3. Nader still gets a showing (although you're right, not as much impact as he would get in a swing state) and the person doesn't have to feel bad about putting bush into the whitehouse. The person i swaped votes with last time went kerry (or at least anti bush) this time without the swap, so i'm looking for someone else.  <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'>Quote: </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> That only assumes the other voter wishes to kick Bush out of office Not all third party voters prefer Kerry over Bush, and that is an assumption perpetuated by your own bias.</td></tr></table>  Fenris: "Is there anyone in a key state, floridia, pennsyvania, or ohio that wants to vote for either ralph nader or a third party candidate but doesn't want to see bush get into the whitehouse for another 4 years?"  <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'>Quote: </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> Maybe you will be lucky enough to find someone who'd see it your way.</td></tr></table>  There are websites dedicated to finding them, i just haven't had any luck. Last time it was easy, i just bumped into someone in that boat in a chatroom.  <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'>Quote: </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> Yeah, basically any voter that will take your cause. If you don't find one, you'll ask another, and another until someone seesit your way.</td></tr></table>  Fenris: yes... and? I may as well complain about stupid people canceling out my vote.  <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'>Quote: </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> You can talk about this all you like, but until you do something, there's nothing to report. The reason there is no law explicitly against this is because any laws that could possibly be made against this sort of thing would be virtually impossible to enforce.</td></tr></table>  Fenris: oh well. Does it matter WHY its within the rules as long as it is?  <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'>Quote: </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> There is no paperwork receipt you can take with you that validates how you vote (that would undermine the necessity for keeping your vote secret), </td></tr></table>  Fenris: if they do electronic voting i will insist on something of the sort. New york still has the old lever pulling machines.  <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'>Quote: </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> and there is no way to ensure that you are making this deal with any person, much less exactly one person. I am not questioning your honesty in this matter. I am however telling you that this can easily be done by people who are dishonest, and endorsing this is not going to make it any better</td></tr></table> . Fenris Oh, definitely. I just assume equal dishonesty on both sides so it all balances out.  <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'>Quote: </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> What is legal and what is ethical are not the same thing. Laws are pointless when it is not possible for you to be caught.</td></tr></table>  Fenris: I don't see what is ethically wrong with this. Ethically my vote SHOULD matter as much as someone in floridias. That it doesn't to me seems a more of a violation of ethics than that i am working on the fringes of the legal system. What standard are you appealing to to say this act is unethical? I am cheating no one, i am making the deal with a thinking adult, and both parties benefit. You're not appealing to the law (since this is quite legal) so whats your beef based on?  <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'>Quote: </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> But it for some reason excuses stupidity in following the herd?</td></tr></table>   <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'>Quote: </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> Now where is this accusation coming from? If you consider respecting the electoral process is "stupidity in following the herd", you have certainly missed out on the actually elegant nature of the electoral college. It's existence is related to the organizations of our House of Representatives and Senate. It ensures that nationwide elections seek a balance between the disparities between the geography of the United States and the population density of those states.</td></tr></table>  Fenris: I am well aware of how it works (the fact that i am advocating vote swaping should demonstrate that), however i place a higher value on the rights of individuals rather than quasi existing state entities and groups.  <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'>Quote: </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> You talk about abolishing our election system because it is as old as the nation yet claim you are doing it to follow the ideals of our nation's founders. That is a severe contradiction</td></tr></table>   <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'>Quote: </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> Here is a news flash. If it works to put the Democrats in power, they're not going to be so eager to remove it either. As far as the electoral college is concerned, your chances of changing it are no different with either candidate in office. If your motivation for electing Kerry is based on that, you need to rethink your priorities. Otherwise, I wish you luck, because I am interested in seeing the best candidate win, no matter who that turns out to be.</td></tr></table>  Fenris: my chances are slim with either party but better with the democrats. My two main voting concearns are the environement and seperation of church and state. That democratic senators (hillary clinton being one) have called for its removal is a start at least.  <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'>Quote: </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> Allow me to rephrase. That line, thankfully, has not been crossed yet. It would take an upset of a landslide victory (at least enough to make up for the margin for error) to discredit the merits of our current election system. If it ever came to that, then I would take your side in the struggle against. By the way, love that sarcasm. <img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... s/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /> That will get you places. </td></tr></table>  Fenris.... bush lost by half a MILLION votes in the popular election. That is within the margin of error for a statistical poll where you try to take a representative sample but that should be FAR outside a margin of error for the ballots themselves. (Lies, damn lies, and statistics)

MidnightRealism · Postby **MidnightRealism** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 7:05 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'>Quote: (Fenris @ Oct 26 2004, 02:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> dammit... what am i doing wrong with those BLEEEPING quotes?</td></tr></table>  Doesn't look like you're doing anything wrong. Odd. <img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... ns/huh.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='huh.gif' />

Tavis · Postby **Tavis** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 7:11 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'>Quote: (MidnightRealism @ Oct 26 2004, 01:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'>  <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'>Quote: (Fenris @ Oct 26 2004, 02:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> dammit... what am i doing wrong with those BLEEEPING quotes?</td></tr></table>  Doesn't look like you're doing anything wrong. Odd. <img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... ns/huh.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='huh.gif' /> </td></tr></table>  It involves pairing the QUOTE and /QUOTE tags evenly. I was tempted to fix them for you, but I was worried that combining mod powers with my stake in this discussion would be a conflict of interests and lead to the appearance of tampering. Can another mod please fix the posts? EDIT: Fenris, if you want to fix it yourself, you can add a /QUOTE just before "There are websites dedicated to finding them", just before "Fenris: my chances are slim with either party but better with the democrats.", and just before "Fenris.... bush lost by half a MILLION votes in the popular election". Once you make those changes (and check the "Add the 'Edit by' line in this post?" box), the preview should look fine.

Ankaris · Postby **Ankaris** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 7:18 pm

You COULD mod me, Tavis <img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /> Nah, j/k, I suck at responsibility! <img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... iggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' />

Fenris · Postby **Fenris** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 7:22 pm

EDIT: Fenris, if you want to fix it yourself, you can add a /QUOTE just before "There are websites dedicated to finding them"just before "Fenris: my chances are slim with either party but better with the democrats.", there's one there already .. or do i need 2 for one of those double quote things you do? or is it the fact that i missed the third one messing up ALL the others? and just before "Fenris.... bush lost by half a MILLION votes in the popular election".

Tavis · Postby **Tavis** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 7:26 pm

Yup.. there are two since it's nested. What I do is hit the QUOTE button, so the entire post appears below, copy, go back, hit reply, paste, and cut out words where they are not needed for a reply.

Fenris · Postby **Fenris** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 7:27 pm

ok it works now.. sort of. i hate computers....

Henohenomoheji · Postby **Henohenomoheji** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 8:19 pm

so wait... none of you are voting Llewellyn?

Holyman83 · Postby **Holyman83** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 8:39 pm

I will I will!!! Oh shoot I already Voted <img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... ns/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' />

Fenris · Postby **Fenris** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 10:31 pm

If i can't find someone to vote swap i may as well vote for lewyn.. if i can remember how to speel it.

Gizensha · Postby **Gizensha** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 10:36 pm

You know, I wasn't going to post in this thread. However. At some point it drifted into if the US political system is flawed and if so why. I have a rather specific perspective on this, and trust me, it's nothing to do with the electoral college system itself (though, I could easially state how to improve it without, for all intents and purposes, actually abolishing it). This isn't so much a post about the political structure of any country, but rather the voting system, and a voting system can, for the most part, be applied to any political structure. To be honest, any system revolving around the 'one vote' concept is inherrently flawed in anything other than a genuinely two party system, which becomes anti-democratic by cases where there genuinely isn't a better candidate out of the two 'main' ones. Some of the reasons have already been said. Others are that, in a situation where 40% want candidate x, 41% want candidate y and 19% want candidate z. Thus, three (or two, depending on your outlook) major problems occur. i) The winner of the election is a candidate without an actual majority, but with the most significant minority. ii) The 19% of people who voted for candidate z are, essentially, 'wasting their vote' and thus preventing a genuine picture of which of candidate x and y would make the better leader, as according to the people. iii) Such a system encourages tactical voting. Let us say that 20% of candidate x's supporters in the above example actually prefer candidate z, but voted for candidate x because candidate x had the larger chance of beating candidate y. Let us also suppose that 20% of candidate y's voters actually supported candidate z, but definitely didn't want candidate x in power. What people actually want with the election would be candidate y in power with a majority (20% x, 21% y, 59% z). Tactical voting, which is encouraged by a one voice one vote based system, therefore, undermimes the very principles of democracy. So... What else can be done? Well, there's the French system. Which is unique, to say the least. Two rounds of voting, the second round being only with the two candidates who had the highest number of votes in the first round. Though, this seems to more act as a guard against apathetic voters than anything else. But to me it seems to combine the weaknesses of an all open election, as outlined above, and the 'two candidates, but what if both would be horrable' concept that I breifly mentioned earlier. My ideal voting mechanism is simply a preferential system. Basically, all voters list the candidates in order of preference from 'most want this candidate in power' to 'least want this candidate in power'. The simplest way of writing the ballet would be as follows: Put a '1' in the candidate you most want to get into power. Put a '2' in the candidate you next want to get into power. et cetera until you run out of candidates. If your second candidate choice, for example, is 'either one of these' then mark both as =2 and list the next candidate as 4 Candidate | Preference X | Y | Z | (which is actually similar to the UK ballets, only the UK ballets you're required to mark the candidate you want with an X and if you make any other mark on the paper then you risk your vote being declaired void) But, how do you determine the winner? Well, say if the following are the votes 20% of people said X Y Z (from first to last) 20% said Z Y X 40% said Y Z X 20% said X Z Y you'd first of all count the first votes. Which comes to 40% X, 40% Y, 20% Z. So, the people have decided that candidate Z should not get into power. So, you remove candidate Z from the lists, and again count the highest votes, which would now say 40% X, 60% Y, and thusly candidate Y would get in. On a one vote system, assuming no tactical voting, it would be a dead heat between candidate X and candidate Y. Now, there are situations where a tie between candidates occur due to the system. For these, there are a variety of tie-breaking methods that have been developed, for example, Maximize Affirmed Majorities. I won't go into details on any of these tie-breaking systems since I am somewhat fuzzy in terms of my knowledge for them. The main criticism, ironicly, of preferential voting, is that people can no longer make protest votes safe in the knowledge that the candidate they're voting for won't win. This seems somewhat confused, to me, since surely you wouldn't vote for a candidate who you do not want in power unless you were making a tactical decission, which, as I have previously stated, I believe undermines democratic systems.

Softpaw · Postby **Softpaw** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 12:09 am

That makes too much sense for Americans, Giz

Honestly, I'm not a fan of vote-swapping, but it's not illegal, so if that's what you want to do, go for it.

Dr. Dos · Postby **Dr. Dos** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 12:46 am

I'm just going to be in the corner until this all blows over. Be sure to tell me who wins.

Gizensha · Postby **Gizensha** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 12:53 am

How about I just do this, then... *googles a tiny little bit* <a href='http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20021102/bob8.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/200 ... > There we go. What I was refering to as preferential is actually instant run off, which this article explains alot better than I did. What I was refering to as one vote is actually singular plurality. Oh. Too much sense. Umm.. Well, considering that, according to voting analysts (according to that article) anything's better than singular plurality which is the current system both the US and UK use... Maybe the simplest alternate methodology is "how much would you like this guy to be president?" and five tick boxes by each candidate for "Would love, would like, don't care, would dislike, would hate" scoring +2 for would love, 0 for don't care, and -2 for would hate... Maybe some sort of emergency proceedure if the winner of the election has a score of 0 or less.

Supersmoke · Postby **Supersmoke** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 1:38 am

We have presidential campaigns this week, in class. I slept through the one today. <img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... s/ohmy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ohmy.gif' /> <img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... /smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' />

Define Cynical Fan Forums

Vote swapping

Who is online