None of the Above

[dsm]

I wanted to start a discussion of the idea of "none of the above".

This poll asks the question "do you think a 'none of the above' amendment to the constitution would be a good idea?" A 'none of the above' amendment would require that all elections include a "none of the above" option. If the "none of the above" option gets a majority of the vote, then the election results would be thrown out and a new election would be held.

http://wwww.noneoftheabove.org

[AnotherSillyAlias]

Oh goody, another poll, they always take me to strange and unexpected places.

[Luke T.]

Can't you write in "None of the Above" on a ballot?

[Luke T.]

I see that your poll does not have a "none of the above" option...

[Ed]

I see that your poll does not have a "none of the above" option...

wise ass:D

[Luke T.]

*files paperwork to legally change name to None Of The Above*

[jj]

I wanted to start a discussion of the idea of "none of the above".

This poll asks the question "do you think a 'none of the above' amendment to the constitution would be a good idea?" A 'none of the above' amendment would require that all elections include a "none of the above" option. If the "none of the above" option gets a majority of the vote, then the election results would be thrown out and a new election would be held.

http://wwww.noneoftheabove.org

How about even a plurality of the vote?

[aerosolben]

How about even a plurality of the vote?
How about a runoff or Condorcet voting system that actually produces a reasonable model of the voters' desires?

[AnotherSillyAlias]

How about a runoff or Condorcet voting system that actually produces a reasonable model of the voters' desires?

I like the system whereby you ask everyone who agrees with you to stand on this side of the room and everyone who disagrees to stand on that side of the room then you kill everyone on that side of the room.

[The Black Fox]

Our student union elections all have a Return Of Ballet option on the voting slip. I don't recall R.O.B. ever being voted in though, usually the most attractive candidates win.

That's democracy for ya!

[TragicMonkey]

I wanted to start a discussion of the idea of "none of the above".

This poll asks the question "do you think a 'none of the above' amendment to the constitution would be a good idea?" A 'none of the above' amendment would require that all elections include a "none of the above" option. If the "none of the above" option gets a majority of the vote, then the election results would be thrown out and a new election would be held.

http://wwww.noneoftheabove.org

This wouldn't work. Nobody would ever get elected, because everyone would vote "none of the above" every time.

[Luke T.]

This wouldn't work. Nobody would ever get elected, because everyone would vote "none of the above" every time.

Governor-Senator-President-Dictator None Of The Above (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1461328#post1461328)

[drkitten]

This poll asks the question "do you think a 'none of the above' amendment to the constitution would be a good idea?" A 'none of the above' amendment would require that all elections include a "none of the above" option. If the "none of the above" option gets a majority of the vote, then the election results would be thrown out and a new election would be held.


The basic problem with this is that it would mean government would lurch along even more unsteadily than it already does, since a small pressure group could essentially hold the government hostage.

Let's use a local example for a moment. In the United States, District Attorney's (DAs) are usually elected, and they are the people ultimately responsible for criminal prosecutions. If there's no DA to sign the paperwork, no charges can be filed.

Similarly, if the City Comptroller needs to sign the checks -- well, if there's no comptroller, there's no checks being signed, and relatively quickly, the garbage trucks run out of fuel and garbage collection stops.

There's a few choices, but none of them are really nice. One possibility is we could keep the old Comptroller around until a successor is chosen,.... but this really means that a small group could simply keep him as Comptroller-for-life by bolluxing up the elections. We could appoint a non-elected "interim Comptroller," but that's far too subject to political meddling. We could also put in the (civil service) Assistant Comptroller, but the idea of civil servants making policy should scare anyone who's ever seen "Yes, Minister."

Or we could just let the trucks stop.

I don't like any of those choices.

At a national level, things wouldn't be much better. Without a President, who serves as Defense Secretary or Attorney General? Do you really want the body of the government running around without an accountable head?

[drkitten]

How about a runoff or Condorcet voting system that actually produces a reasonable model of the voters' desires?


People in the States tend not to like complicated voting systems, as they feel they take too much effort to understand. And even using the more complicated system doesn't necessarily produce a good model -- I think Ken Arrow won the Nobel Prize for pointing that out....

Personally, I'm in favor of using an STV system like Australia.

[aerosolben]

People in the States tend not to like complicated voting systems, as they feel they take too much effort to understand.
It's not THAT hard. Nevertheless, I agree with you that's its unlikely.

And even using the more complicated system doesn't necessarily produce a good model -- I think Ken Arrow won the Nobel Prize for pointing that out....
I believe Arrow's theorem actually states that it is impossible for any voting system to be fair, or something along those lines.

It doesn't mean certain system don't produce a better approximation of fairness over a broad spectrum of circumstances.

Personally, I'm in favor of using an STV system like Australia.
This is basically generic run-off voting. Personally, I think a Condorcet system produces a fairer result, but regardless, all of these are equally complex - they all require voters to rank candidates in the same fashion. If it succeeds in Australia, why not in America?

[drkitten]

I believe Arrow's theorem actually states that it is impossible for any voting system to be fair, or something along those lines.

It doesn't mean certain system don't produce a better approximation of fairness over a broad spectrum of circumstances.

This is basically generic run-off voting. Personally, I think a Condorcet system produces a fairer result, but regardless, all of these are equally complex

... except when Condorcent voting never produces a result at all. That, to me, is a fatal flaw in Condorcet voting. The other problem is that the Condorcet matrix is substantially more complex than a simple ordered list of preferences, and I really doubt that Granny Weatherwax will be able to understand it when she goes to cast her vote....

[jj]

Or we could just let the trucks stop.

I don't see how your logic works. Unless the "none" gets at least a plurality, we have somebody elected, and the trucks keep rolling. Only if the "small group" is actually at least a plurality does anything start to happen.

[jj]

I really doubt that Granny Weatherwax will be able to understand it when she goes to cast her vote....


Now, now, Granny Weatherwax always does the right thing, eventually. :)

But I agree that a complex voting system will lead to confusion and problems, at least in the short term.

[TragicMonkey]

The other problem is that the Condorcet matrix is substantially more complex than a simple ordered list of preferences, and I really doubt that Granny Weatherwax will be able to understand it when she goes to cast her vote....

Granny Weatherwax wouldn't bother to vote. She'd just go tell her candidate of choice he had the job, and nobody would dare to contradict her.

[aerosolben]

... except when Condorcent voting never produces a result at all. That, to me, is a fatal flaw in Condorcet voting. Any practical Condorcet methods will include a non-arbitrary tie-breaking procedure. Note that there really is no "Condorcet method", there are simply a variety of methods (distinguished by their tie-breaking criteria) which satisfy the Condorcet criterion.

Personally, I think the failure of runoff voting to select the Condorcet winner is a bigger problem. When you have a candidate who is voted higher than every other opponent, and he doesn't win, that is a BIG problem.

The other problem is that the Condorcet matrix is substantially more complex than a simple ordered list of preferences, and I really doubt that Granny Weatherwax will be able to understand it when she goes to cast her vote.... Condorcet voting is done by ordered list, the same as IRV. The matrix is just a tool you can use to find the pairwise rankings from the list. Granny Weatherwax doesn't ever see it.

[aerosolben]

Personally, I think the failure of runoff voting to select the Condorcet winner is a bigger problem. When you have a candidate who is voted higher than every other opponent, and he doesn't win, that is a BIG problem. Let me expand on this a little more to demonstrate to those unfamiliar with the voting system why this is an issue.

Let's say we have a field of 5 candidates. Here's how our ballots break down (only top 2 choices for brevity):


4% 1.A 2.B
4% 1.A 2.C
4% 1.A 2.D
4% 1.A 2.E
21% 1.B 2.A
21% 1.C 2.A
21% 1.D 2.A
21% 1.E 2.A

In IRV, A is immediately eliminated for having the fewest first place votes, even though they are overwhelmingly (79% of the voters) preferred to all the other candidates when looking at the whole preference list.