Re: A simple proposition to fix democracy in U.S.

Points for erik
We have used the single transferrable vote in ireland since the 1920's
It has quite a history. It is often used in universitys (in the uk and in
the states sometimes too for their internal elections). 
The Irish people rejected returning to the straight vote about 30 years ago.
STV works just fine in up to 5 seat constituencys. And has for decades!
AND in a 5 seater over 70% of the votes cast elect people. (This empowers
voters). You cast a single vote.  Just one. It is not a multible vote.
All politicical decisions are about multible issues. Is the guy too crooked,
will he close my hospital or the one in the town where he lives? etc.
And winner takes all elections do not deal well with the complex world we
live in. 
http://www.voting.ukscientists.com/stvcount.html gives details about the
single transferrable vote system. It is a scientifically based system and
it deals well with complex issues. Suppose you have a constitutional
referendum for example. You could put 4 different wordings to the people
under the stv system and you could have confidence in their choice because
the system is designed to make the best choice.
Similarly, you can put out 4 candidates and the candidate which is least
disliked  will win. Under the american system a guy could win with less
than 40% approval. That is unsafe.
By the way, I dont approve of voting machines but they can be and are used
under the stv system. For the voter, the system is really easy to use. You
just rate the candidates. 1, 2, 3 in order of your choice. Marking an X was
fine when illiteracy was rampant. But now it is way past time to move on to
something more modern.
Brian White
Erik Aronesty wrote:

>> It seems to me that there is both a philosophical and a practical
>> issue at stake here. The philosophical issue is the "one man, one
>> vote" system of participation in the political system.  I'm not sure
> 
> Not philosophy, game theory.
> 
> Each person gets one vote on every issue on a ballot.
> 
> You get to vote "yes or no" to each candidate on the ballot.
> 
> That's it.  Everyone gets one vote on each issue.
> 
> You just have to realize that each candidate is a separate issue....
> the issue of "Is this guy good enough to be president?"  ... "Ok, how
> about this guy?"
> 
> Only after the advent of computer science and game theory do we really
> understand why pluralism fails.  By "merging" multiple issues onto a
> single multiple-choice ballot you enable manipulation.  This is
> similar to how politicians add "pork" to bills in Congress.
> 
>> idea.  At present, the reason it makes sense to limit people to one
>> vote per race is that in nearly all elections-- state legislature,
>> governor, other state-wide offices, US House, US Senate, and
>> President-- there is only one seat open.  Moving to an approval system
> 
> Actually, Approval Voting is only ever used for single-seat elections.
>  It is completely not appropriate to use Approval voting for a
> parlimentary system.