<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>K-Squared Ramblings &#187; system</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.hyperborea.org/journal/tag/system/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.hyperborea.org/journal</link>
	<description>Sci-fi, comics, humor, photos...it&#039;s all fair game.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 06:27:02 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
		<item>
		<title>A Better Voting System</title>
		<link>http://www.hyperborea.org/journal/2003/06/a-better-voting-system/</link>
		<comments>http://www.hyperborea.org/journal/2003/06/a-better-voting-system/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jun 2003 17:58:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kelson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[condorcet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[system]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[voting]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hyperborea.org/journal/archives/2003/06/06/a-better-voting-system/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[For several years now (before the 2000 Presidential election, but even more strongly after that), I&#8217;ve been of the opinion that allowing people to mark a 1st, 2nd and 3rd choice on each ballot would effectively resolve the &#8220;lesser of &#8230; <a href="http://www.hyperborea.org/journal/2003/06/a-better-voting-system/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For several years now (before the 2000 Presidential election, but even more strongly after that), I&#8217;ve been of the opinion that allowing people to mark a 1st, 2nd and 3rd choice on each ballot would effectively resolve the &#8220;lesser of two evils&#8221; problem that limits us to the Republicans and Democrats as the only viable political parties.</p>
<p>(For the record, since I was first eligible to vote, I&#8217;ve registered with a &#8220;decline to state&#8221; affiliation because I prefer to be associated with neither right-wing wackos nor left-wing wackos.  I usually consider myself a moderate, but in today&#8217;s political climate what I consider moderate looks extremely liberal by comparison.)</p>
<p>The last two big elections, Bush vs. Gore for President and Davis vs. Simon for California governor, were both cases where I didn&#8217;t particularly like one candidate but really disliked the other.<span id="more-136"></span>  I voted for Davis not because I wanted him to stay in office, but because I wanted to keep Simon <i>out</i> of office.  Similarly, I really didn&#8217;t want Bush in the White House despite the fact that I wasn&#8217;t terribly excited about Gore.  (Actually, I might have voted for McCain if he&#8217;d been running.  He&#8217;s voted for some things I disagree with, but even back then he struck me as a much more sensible person than our current President, and much closer to my own political leanings.)</p>
<p>Anyway, suppose one of these elections had featured a viable third-party candidate, someone with as much visibility as Perot had in 1992.  Now suppose that this candidate was more in line with my political opinions than either &#8220;mainstream&#8221; candidate.  Under the current system, depending on how close the election looked, I would probably still end up voting for Davis or Gore, despite the fact that I&#8217;d rather have the hypothetical third candidate win.</p>
<p>Now suppose I could list my first, second and third choice:  In the gubernatorial race, I could have voted for Mr. Hypothetical first, Davis second, and cast no vote for Simon (or put him last on the list).  If enough people thought as I did, preferring the third-party candidate overall, then voting their second choice as the lesser of the remaining two evils, that candidate might actually have a chance to win.</p>
<p>Strangely, while following a link from a software mailing list, I noticed some <a href="http://goldmark.org/jeff/politics/ec-defense.html">commentary on this same subject</a>, and a description of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method">Condorcet voting system</a>&#8212;very similar to what I had considered, but much more thoroughly developed.  [<b>Edit:</b> That link originally pointed to electionmethods.org, but the two people running the site had a falling out over politics.  One of them put up a ridiculously condescending shutdown notice in October 2005.]</p>
<p>Of course since the guy who developed it was French, chances are no one today will admit to looking at it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.hyperborea.org/journal/2003/06/a-better-voting-system/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

