US Presidential Primaries, 2008

[Gokul43201]

http://www.progressivepunch.org/members.jsp?search=selectScore&chamber=Senate&scoreSort=current_congress

Ranking of Senators from most to least "progressive": play around with different areas of legislation to zoom in on fields of interest.

"Lifetime" Scores - going back until 1991 (all issues):

#1. Sheldon Whitehouse
#20. Hillary Clinton
#25. Barack Obama
#60. John McCain
#100. Jim DeMintVotes cast during 2007-2008 (all issues):

#1. Frank Lautenberg
#29. Hillary Clinton
#41. Barack Obama
#82. John McCain
#100. Jim DeMint

Note: Clinton and Obama appear to have swung towards the center lately, while McCain has swung a lot to the Right.

PS: Can we have the former McCain back...please?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

There has to be a grass-roots movement for reforms that take some of the "600lb gorilla" influence away from the major parties to allow Libertarians, Greens, Independents, and other smaller parties to consolidate and grow. I'm not sure how that can be accomplished apart from supplying public financing for all national elections and banning contributions from all other sources. As for the costs of running campaigns, TV stations, radio stations, etc have to be licensed and they are for the most part getting public bandwidth dirt-cheap, and should be expected to air debates free of charge.

But I know how to accomplish it under the current system. Vote for Nader. He espouses all of your views. Why should anybody listen to your plans to revamp the political system when you won't pull the anti-2-party lever yourself?

 

[Art]

But I know how to accomplish it under the current system. Vote for Nader. He espouses all of your views. Why should anybody listen to your plans to revamp the political system when you won't pull the anti-2-party lever yourself?

I don't question your personal support for Nadar but Republicans will be urging democrats to vote for Nadar as the next installment of Operation Chaos to ensure a Republican victory.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I don't question your personal support for Nadar but Republicans will be urging democrats to vote for Nadar as the next installment of Operation Chaos to ensure a Republican victory.

So what? It is better to vote for what you want and not get it, than to vote for what you don't want and get it. Are you suggesting that he not vote for what he wants, and vote for something he doesn't want? Turbo wants, needs, out of the 2-party system. For fear of giving pleasure to the Republican enemy he should vote for the Democratic enemy? That's rich.

 

[Art]

That's where realpolitik (or game theory for that matter) kicks in and you vote against someone rather than for someone to get your best achievable result.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

get your best achievable result.

There you have it turbo, Art has declared your needs unachievable. Do you agree with him?

 

[quadraphonics]

We already do exactly that here in Ireland but we still end up with a party system, albeit 3 parties rather than 2 with just a handful of independents.

Yeah, it's not going to eliminate party politics; the idea is simply to break the hold that the two party system enjoys in winner-take-all elections. Even if all you end up with is a small (but significant) third party, you've still eliminated most of the downsides of two-party politics. For that matter, I'm not sure it's such a great goal to have too many parties anyway. It seems like a recipe for gridlock and inaction, although much would depend on how the executive and legislature were related. Many people consider the decisiveness of winner-take-all systems to be an advantage (although it should be mentioned that many people cite the same property as an advantage of authoritarian rule over republican principles).

 

[Art]

There you have it turbo, Art has declared your needs unachievable. Do you agree with him?

If the 'need' is to get Nadar elected then yes that need is unachievable.

 

[Art]

Yeah, it's not going to eliminate party politics; the idea is simply to break the hold that the two party system enjoys in winner-take-all elections. Even if all you end up with is a small (but significant) third party, you've still eliminated most of the downsides of two-party politics. For that matter, I'm not sure it's such a great goal to have too many parties anyway. It seems like a recipe for gridlock and inaction, although much would depend on how the executive and legislature were related. Many people consider the decisiveness of winner-take-all systems to be an advantage (although it should be mentioned that many people cite the same property as an advantage of authoritarian rule over republican principles).

When one looks at Italy with it's proportional representation resulting in about a zillion gov'ts since WW2 each one lasting for what seems like 5 minutes then yes there is a major problem with a myriad of small parties.

Even with 3 main parties one can end up with very undemocratic results. A few years ago in Ireland there was a situation where no party had an overall majority so the biggest party went into coalition with one of the smallest fringe parties who in payment had many of their policies pushed through as part of the gov't program despite having only won 1% of the popular vote at the polls. In fact they only had 2 elected members and both of them were given front bench ministerial positions.

My main problem with party politics is the loyalty of the politicians is focused on their party rather than the country or their constituents but it's hard to think of a workable alternative.

 

[lisab]

My main problem with party politics is the loyalty of the politicians is focused on their party rather than the country or their constituents but it's hard to think of a workable alternative.

Amen, Art!

 

[BobG]

http://www.progressivepunch.org/members.jsp?search=selectScore&chamber=Senate&scoreSort=current_congress

Ranking of Senators from most to least "progressive": play around with different areas of legislation to zoom in on fields of interest.

"Lifetime" Scores - going back until 1991 (all issues):

#1. Sheldon Whitehouse
#20. Hillary Clinton
#25. Barack Obama
#60. John McCain
#100. Jim DeMint


Votes cast during 2007-2008 (all issues):

#1. Frank Lautenberg
#29. Hillary Clinton
#41. Barack Obama
#82. John McCain
#100. Jim DeMint

Note: Clinton and Obama appear to have swung towards the center lately, while McCain has swung a lot to the Right.

PS: Can we have the former McCain back...please?

Interesting list, but slightly misleading.

Clinton has barely shifted at all.

The rest of the Senate has become more progressive - some shockingly so on the Republican side:
Gordon Smith (18.75 to 41.89), Olympia Snowe (35.52 to 56.18), George Voinovich (15.9 to 32.25), Susan Collins (33.49 to 48.82), and Specter, Coleman, Lugar, Murkowski, Stevens, Hagel, Domenici, and Warner all over a 10 point change.

Both Obama and McCain are among only 5 Senators of either party to become less progressive by more than 5 points.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Bill was always a rock-star on the "vision" thing, while helping multi-nationals and Wal-Mart export jobs to places where people earn a lot less and there are no pesky benefits like overtime, health coverage, retirement, etc. He's a creep, and I had to hold my nose to vote for the creep because the Republican creeps looked worse. The US has to get beyond a 2-party system that can be gamed and twisted by the party heavies. We are being screwed by leeches and the press is in on it and is unwilling to buck the trend because they have given up on investigating and reporting and are falling back on printing the crap being fed to them by their patrons.

If the 'need' is to get Nadar elected then yes that need is unachievable.

No Art, it seems like you came into the middle of a conversation. Turbo's need is to get beyond a 2-party system. i proposed that he vote for someone outside of the two parties. Nader agrees with turbo on multi-nationals, Wal-Mart, exporting jobs, and pesky benefits. This proposal has met with considerable resistance. This, of course, comes as no surprise. But I would be surprised to learn that turbo is more moved by the argument that his need is unachievable, by someone not even knowing what need was being discussed, than by the argument that if he won't lift a finger to supply his own need then he can't expect anyone else to either. And yet other people will be voting for Nader. Where does that leave turbo?

Does anyone else have a better idea how turbo can achieve his goal?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

There has to be a grass-roots movement for reforms that take some of the "600lb gorilla" influence away from the major parties to allow Libertarians, Greens, Independents, and other smaller parties to consolidate and grow. I'm not sure how that can be accomplished apart from supplying public financing for all national elections and banning contributions from all other sources. As for the costs of running campaigns, TV stations, radio stations, etc have to be licensed and they are for the most part getting public bandwidth dirt-cheap, and should be expected to air debates free of charge.

We can't afford to finance every yahoo and ostritch that wants to run for office. Television and radio networks can't afford to give away that much air time free either. That's why people get money from outside sources, too show they have support enough to put forward a campaign. The problem is it goes the other way too. People don't want to invest in a candidate who can't win so they can't get more money unless people VOTE FOR THEM.

 

[quadraphonics]

When one looks at Italy with it's proportional representation resulting in about a zillion gov'ts since WW2 each one lasting for what seems like 5 minutes then yes there is a major problem with a myriad of small parties.

Even with 3 main parties one can end up with very undemocratic results. A few years ago in Ireland there was a situation where no party had an overall majority so the biggest party went into coalition with one of the smallest fringe parties who in payment had many of their policies pushed through as part of the gov't program despite having only won 1% of the popular vote at the polls. In fact they only had 2 elected members and both of them were given front bench ministerial positions.

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of either proportional representation, or parliamentary systems for that matter. They seem to amount to ways of entrenching the power of larger numbers of parties, which is not a huge improvement on a two-party system. The idea should be less of an inbuilt partisan stranglehold.

One of the upsides of instant runoff voting is that it provides more direct legitimacy, in that the final winner does get a majority of votes, even if they are second- or third-choice votes. The big question in my mind regarding changing the partisan structure in the US is how well it would work with the executive system we currently use. You could imagine problem scenarios where the president is of one party, but the legislature is controlled by two other parties, and the result might be gridlock. This is the sort of situation that parliamentary systems are designed to avoid, but I suppose it's the sort of issue that's best settled through experiment at the local level.

 

[chemisttree]

My pet proposal for disempowering the two-party system is instant-runoff voting. Rather than casting a vote for a single candidate, each voter would rank the candidates. Then, to decide the winner, you first check if any candidate received a majority of first-choice votes. If not, you eliminate the least-popular candidate and distribute his votes to their second-choice candidates, repeating this process until someone has a majority of non-eliminated candidates. This removes much of the incentive that the winner-take-all system provides for voters to cast in their lot with a big party (i.e., "don't throw your vote away."). It's also the kind of thing that's relatively straightforward to pitch and implement on the local level.

I don't think there's any need to mess with the executive structure of the overall republic in favor of parliamentarism, or at least any time soon. It could be that adjustments to the relationship between the executive and legislature are appropriate for a polity with less power concentrated in two parties, but we're a long way from that point, and in the meantime it's winner-take-all voting that is the main sustainer of the two-party system.

My main complaint with this system is that it gives some voters more than one vote. If I read your intent properly, those voters who voted for the least popular candidate as their first choice get their first choice votes rolled into their second choice candidate. The candidate effectively gets two first choice votes from the same voter. This could continue for several rounds, each round magnifying the injustice of multiple votes from these "fringe' voting groups.

It is a recipe for voting gamesmanship and greatly eggagerates the voting power of fringe groups. A revolution would soon follow...

 

[turbo]

My main complaint with this system is that it gives some voters more than one vote. If I read your intent properly, those voters who voted for the least popular candidate as their first choice get their first choice votes rolled into their second choice candidate. The candidate effectively gets two first choice votes from the same voter. This could continue for several rounds, each round magnifying the injustice of multiple votes from these "fringe' voting groups.

It is a recipe for voting gamesmanship and greatly eggagerates the voting power of fringe groups. A revolution would soon follow...

And can you imagine the confusion and jam-ups at the polls. Lots of people have trouble reading and properly marking their ballots as it is, especially if they are designed in a way that is confusing, like the butterfly ballot. Of course, requiring voters to choose and properly mark their first, second, and third choices might be one way to ensure that stupid peoples' votes don't count, because their ballots would be tossed after they screwed them up (like marking two 2nd-choice candidates or something similar).

 

[chemisttree]

And can you imagine the confusion and jam-ups at the polls. Lots of people have trouble reading and properly marking their ballots as it is, especially if they are designed in a way that is confusing, like the butterfly ballot. Of course, requiring voters to choose and properly mark their first, second, and third choices might be one way to ensure that stupid peoples' votes don't count, because their ballots would be tossed after they screwed them up (like marking two 2nd-choice candidates or something similar).

On an alphabetical ballot would candidates change their last names to "AAAMcCain"? VOTE AAAAAAAANADER, Turbo!

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Rather than casting a vote for a single candidate, each voter would rank the candidates. Then, to decide the winner, you first check if any candidate received a majority of first-choice votes. If not, you eliminate the least-popular candidate and distribute his votes to their second-choice candidates, repeating this process until someone has a majority of non-eliminated candidates.

This is neither criticism nor praise, but I merely point out the interesting fact that under this system, the winner need not be anyone's first choice, but merely everyone's second. Or not even second, but only third.

What happens if candidate A has the smallest number of first choices and so loses those votes. Then it turns out that A is third choice enough to make 50%, but only if you add back in the votes that you eliminated in the first step? This is more complicated than grandma's underwear.

 

[chemisttree]

This is neither criticism nor praise, but I merely point out the interesting fact that under this system, the winner need not be anyone's first choice, but merely everyone's second. Or not even second, but only third.

This would be Limbaugh's next operation, "Operation Magnify the Vote", and would give new meaning to the phrase, "Vote early and vote often."

 

[quadraphonics]

My main complaint with this system is that it gives some voters more than one vote. If I read your intent properly, those voters who voted for the least popular candidate as their first choice get their first choice votes rolled into their second choice candidate. The candidate effectively gets two first choice votes from the same voter.

I'm not sure where the second vote comes from? The first-choice votes for the least-popular candidate are not "rolled over," they're discarded, and the second-choice votes are then applied to the other candidates. In the final tally, each voter ends up with exactly one vote for exactly one candidate. It just might not be their first (or even second or third) choice of candidates.

 

[chemisttree]

I'm not sure where the second vote comes from?

I may have misunderstood but this sounds like you are distributing votes to second-choice candidates.

If not, you eliminate the least-popular candidate and distribute his votes to their second-choice candidates, repeating this process until someone has a majority of non-eliminated candidates. The first-choice votes for the least-popular candidate are not "rolled over," they're discarded, and the second-choice votes are then applied to the other candidates. In the final tally, each voter ends up with exactly one vote for exactly one candidate. It just might not be their first (or even second or third) choice of candidates.

Nevermind, I got it. You are proposing to segregate ballots based on first choices and then recount the last place candidate's ballots for the second choice. OK.

 

[quadraphonics]

This is neither criticism nor praise, but I merely point out the interesting fact that under this system, the winner need not be anyone's first choice, but merely everyone's second. Or not even second, but only third.

True, although the same criticism applies to our present system. At least with instant runoff voting you get to say who your first-choice candidate is, even if your third-choice candidate is the one who ends up winning. With winner-take all voting, you're forced to shelve your opinions and just vote for the third-choice candidate directly out of political expediency. So I'm not sure we'd be giving anything up in this department. When was the last time that your first-choice candidate in the early primary process ended up winning?

What happens if candidate A has the smallest number of first choices and so loses those votes. Then it turns out that A is third choice enough to make 50%, but only if you add back in the votes that you eliminated in the first step? This is more complicated than grandma's underwear.

In the standard methods for doing instant run-off voting, that candidate simply loses after the first round. I'm not sure whether this is really a problem or not, though. I'm trying to think through some examples to see if it results in problems... you need at least 4 candidates for such an example to be interesting, cause if there's only 3, getting a majority of third-choice votes basically means that everyone agrees that they do not want you to win, and so it's right that you should be eliminated at the outset. With 4 or more candidates, maybe you can construct a more interesting example? At any rate, there are numerous variants on instant-runoff voting, some of which presumably address cases like this.

This brings up the interesting issue of how the interpretations of the votes change as you go down through the levels of preference. Clearly, a first-choice vote is essentially the same as a regular vote in our present system, and a second-choice one is also similar. But as you get down to the n-th choice vote on a ballot of n candidates, it starts to look more like a vote against that candidate than a weak vote for him.

Another ramification to think through is the effect of such a system on party primaries. I.e., it removes much of the incentive to even hold party primaries, as there is no danger of splitting the vote and so losing to the opposing party. This is one of the key ways in which instant-runoff voting breaks the hold of parties. In addition to providing breathing space for third parties to make inroads, it also creates an incentive for the bigger parties to be more big-tent and less disciplined. In winner-take-all voting, elections are a zero-sum game, where less votes for one party is equivalent to more votes for the other one. This is not the case with instant-runoff voting, which would allow, for example, libertarians to vote their conscience without the fear that they'll simply end up empowering Democrats by doing so.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

True, although the same criticism applies to our present system.

No, under the current system, a candidate who is everybody's third choice and nobody's first choice could not win. But it wasn't a criticism, just an observation.

 

[quadraphonics]

Weren't they already applied to the other candidates in the first round?

No, the only votes considered in the first round are first-choice votes. If someone wins a majority of first-choice votes in the first round, then none of the second (or third or ...) choice votes are considered in any way, and the whole thing works exactly like a winner-take-all vote, with each voter's first-choice vote acting as their sole vote. It's only if nobody wins a majority in the first round that the differences arise. Then, you eliminate the candidate with the smallest number of first-choice votes, and distribute those votes to their second-choice candidates. All of the voters who did not vote for the eliminated candidate are left alone: you still only consider their first-choice votes. This process is then repeated until some candidate has a majority.

Are you saying that the percentage of votes for the first and second place candidates will be changed (by removing votes on the bottom of the ticket) until they achieve a greater than 50% number. That wouldn't change the ranking at all. The first place candidate in the first round would take it all.

No, votes are not removed, their simply reassigned onto smaller and smaller sets of candidates until one becomes the winner. The guy who is ahead in the first round is not guaranteed a win.

Hopefully that clarifies the process. The wikipedia page probably has a better description than I've come up with... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

 

[chemisttree]

Hopefully that clarifies the process. The wikipedia page probably has a better description than I've come up with...

OK, I got it. I was thrown off by the phrase "distribute his votes to their second choice candidates" in the first post.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

In the first round, candidates A, B, C, D, and E receive about 20% of the votes each, in the order A < B < C < D < E. A is eliminated and the second choices turn out to be equally divided among B, C, D, and E.

In the second round candidates B, C, D and E now are in the order B < C < D < E. B is eliminated and the second choices turn out to be all for A. A now has close to 40% of the votes, however, half of those votes have been eliminated and the candidate has been eliminated too.

In the third round candidates A, C, D and E now are in the order A < C < D < E. A is eliminated and the second choices are distributed equally among C, D and E.

In the fourth round candidates C, D and E now are in the order C < D < E. C is eliminated and the second choices all go to A. A now has 60% of the votes, but only 20% count and the candidate has been eliminated twice. Now A, D, and E survive

In the fifth round A is eliminated for the third time all of the votes shared equally between D and E. E has more votes than D and wins with roughly 50% of the votes.

Stated more simply, 20% of the time A was first choice, 20% of the time A was second choice after B, and 20% of the time A was second choice after C.

 

[quadraphonics]

No, under the current system, a candidate who is everybody's third choice and nobody's first choice could not win. But it wasn't a criticism, just an observation.

Actually, I spoke too quickly earlier: instant run-off voting does not allow a candidate who is everybody's third choice and nobody's first choice to win. Such a candidate would be eliminated in the first round. Indeed, the elimination of such a candidate would be the very first thing that happens in an instant runoff.

 

[quadraphonics]

In the first round, candidates A, B, C, D, and E receive about 20% of the votes each, in the order A < B < C < D < E. A is eliminated and the second choices turn out to be equally divided among B, C, D, and E.

Okay.

In the second round candidates B, C, D and E now are in the order B < C < D < E. B is eliminated and the second choices turn out to be all for A. A now has close to 40% of the votes, however, half of those votes have been eliminated and the candidate has been eliminated too.

Right, so we reassign the B voter's votes to their third choices. In the regular instant run-off, candidates cannot be resurrected once eliminated, although I'm sure there are variants that allow this.

In the third round candidates A, C, D and E now are in the order A < C < D < E. A is eliminated and the second choices are distributed equally among C, D and E.

Err... there is no candidate A in the third round. We've already given the A votes to B, C, D and E (which affected the fact that B lost the second round). If you bring back A now, you'll be counting some votes twice. Without specifying rules for handling this stuff, it's difficult to make sense of this example.

Stated more simply, 20% of the time A was first choice, 20% of the time A was second choice after B, and 20% of the time A was second choice after C.

Okay. I'm not sure what the problem is here? These statements are also true (but with slightly higher percentages) of E, the ultimate winner, no?

 

[lisab]

Un-freaking-believable. Clinton just gave this reason for staying in the race:

Hillary Clinton's argument for staying in the race took a disturbing turn today. While meeting with the editorial board of South Dakota's Sioux Falls Argus-Leader, she raised the specter of assassination while discussing why she would stay in the race:

"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it."

She's staying in, in case Obama gets assassinated?!?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/23/clinton-kennedy-assassina_n_103319.html

Wow. That's just sickening.

 

[turbo]

I just read that, too, lisab, and came back to this thread only to find that you had got to it first. She is a disgusting opportunist. She should bow out gracefully and support Obama whole-heartedly. Then if the unthinkable happens, she will be the nominee. She cannot be the nominee by any other metric - numerically, her campaign is dead.