Jewish voting methods

I can't figure out what I hate about this but I know it reeks of Jewish subversion

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_impossibility_theorem
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

I don't see anything wrong about this.

We have it in my city. You have to vote for up to 3, but if you vote 1 your vote is basically wasted.

Now everyone just votes for whoever lives closest to them in the hopes they'll care most about their particular neighborhood.

You only have 2 political parties, though.

Its actually better. It will make the republicans and democrats, the two jewish controlled parties, less powerful
Yes and thats because we have First Past the Post. We will have more parties if we do ranked choice.

It's better than voting for one if there are more than two candidates, but if this is done, why not go the extra step for true voter representation? Here, someone can get elected who would not be the most agreeable choice for the majority, because votes can be tied up in candidates that haven't been eliminated.

Instead, why not do this: Assign every candidate a score of 1, 2 or 3. The scores are then tallied up, and the one with the most points is the winner.

Itll go down like in did in France, the right wing party will get a large amount of support until the final round when all of the losing parties vote against them. People vote differently as choices are eliminated and it ultimately leads to voting against something instead of for something.

This is called the "Alternative vote" system
People claim this system will make the established parties less powerful but it is actually the opposite. Since the alternative parties have such little support, only the main parties will survive the elimination process and win. Just look at Australia, the two main parties dominate their electoral system and they use this system for the lower house.

>voting against something instead of for something

that's already how it works

Thanks lads

Why can't we have a meritocracy instead?

Because that would make sense.

Perhaps, but even here in America the 3rd party option has some sway in the final results. It would be like if the Libertarian and Green party were eliminated and those people were forced to choose between the two major parties. I suspect that extra 1-5% being bled off to likely largely Democratic votes would change electoral results quite a bit. So many of our elections are a near 50/50 split.

Just look at how the liberal parties win major offices almost across the board in many places in Europe - this voting system leads to anybody that is left of the center right (considered far right over there) voting lefty.

This is how it is here in Australia at most levels of Government. Sometimes comes up with strange results where someone who only gets a very small fraction of the primary vote survives throughout the knockout rounds because nobody has a clear majority, then preference votes start to flow to them.

On the downside, the political parties do deals to swap preferences, so you can vote "above the line" where you simply number 1 box and they preferences will be filled out how they parties have negotiated.

The plus side is you can number your own preferences, making sure commies and socialists come last, no matter what. Not many people are prepared to do this. In our last federal election I had to number from 1 - 124 to make sure my preference flow was respected. People make online tools to make it easier - you can go through a series of simple questions about your preferences or like/dislike of certain parties, and get a guide on complicated ballots.

Most local/state elections will only have 5-6 candidates though, so it's pretty simple.

Not perfect, but it works. We just need more independents and small parties here in Australia to ensure all views are represented. Most elections are a choice between two major parties - they are all in it for themselves.

We're about to have an election here in my state, QLD. Looking like One Nation will get around 1/3 of the vote, making them the power brokers.

What is your issue with 'voting against' things? Not getting some sensible opposition because of soygoy sheeple banding together is an argument against democracy in general, rather than no-voting in particular.

The problem with this is you can not really antagonize with others. Everyone would take the middle/neutral ground on everything.

Right. Might be a good system for ethnostates. Otherwise...

It's overly complicated and that opens it up to corruption which you rightly tie to the Jews

Quit sliding,OP. Sup Forums is solidly pro-RCV.

This doesn't work because it never comes into play in most systems, because the party or parties currently in charge have no incentive to put it into place. It literally only serves to give power to third parties, which they don't want, they want to maintain their overwhelming support and control.

2 round vote was a mistake.

>he doesn't believe in mixed-member proportional voting systems for senate

>he hasn't taken the malaysia pill on voting systems

shameful display

This. It creates a 2 party system which any mouthbreather can understand makes corruption much easier and stifles any real democratic change.

This voting method actually makes sense, the Jewing comes from the fact that they already picked all your candidates for you.

Well, it should be noted that the benefits of two-party systems exist, but much of the benefits only are applicable in certain countries. There is no one "perfect" voting system for the entire world, primarily because of ethnographic differences and rural vs. urban voting preferences. Taking a look at southeast asia, several of the democratic nations have different voting systems for good reason, simply because otherwise a FPTP system would actually lead to rebellion and mass discontent in the nations where ethnographic homogeneity is low.

Two-party systems, which generally arise from FPTP or FPTP-esque systems, lead to a more unified difference in the parties, instead of several small parties establishing coalitions and appearing and acting indecisive. The USA is the best example of this, with power generally transferring between the two parties, to establish "control" of the country and place blame on one side or another when something poor happens. The blame cannot be shifted and ambiguously hidden, since only one party has primary control of the nation. Of course, this system is inherently unstable, and generally works the best in ethnographically homogenous nations, but ce la vie.

Mixed-member proportional or alternative vote systems would generally be more helpful in garnering a better sense of representation in ethnographically disunified nations, such as the present USA, for the most part, in the coastal areas.

Individual preferences can't be aggregated decently that way:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_impossibility_theorem