Why can't America into preferential voting?

Why can't America into preferential voting?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Because that would destroy the two party system they have currently.

Then I'd have to count past 3

because it's for faggot cucks that settle for second and third choices and this is America

>Australian Sex Party
huh?

Prefer random ballot system desu

>huh?

It's the SEX party. I mean LOL!

The SEX party! HAHAHAHAHA how fucking FUNNY is that xDDDDDDDDDD

I always vote for the SEX party LOL i Like SEX hahahah SEX PARTY you can vote for the sex party!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DUURRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!

*labels it as 1*

*doesnt fill out the rest of the ballot*

Yeeeeee m8 a JOB well done *cracks open a beer*

roflmfao good one m8 xD

shitty system tbqh

Electoral college system is literally masterrace

Because of this masterpiece of stupid:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

>ludicris speed activated

no need to get retarded

Preference voting is plebian tier

wtf i hate sex now

I frankly wouldn't be that surprised if a state or two adopted it for some positions. But it's never going to happen for the Presidential election, though.

But seriously why not? I was talking to an American friend and asked who he would vote for. He said:
>I don't like either candidate so I'm not going to vote
Why not vote for a third party?
>because that's just throwing away a vote user

>The Australian Sex Party is an Australian political party founded in 2009 in response to concerns over the increasing influence of religion in Australian politics.[1][2] The party was born out of an adult-industry lobby group, the Eros Association. Its leader, Fiona Patten, was formerly the association's CEO.[3] Patten describes the party as a "civil libertarian alternative".[4] Patten is a veteran campaigner on issues such as censorship, equality, and discrimination.[5][6] Patten was elected to the Victorian Legislative Council at the 2014 state election.

>Australians literally have party dedicated for sex

fpbp

OP the two parties in power want to keep it a rigged two party thing so those two parties can rule forever even if most people hate them.

He's right. It is throwing away your vote. Don't like the candidate of either party? Why didn't you vote during the primary?

Right, because he didn't give enough of a shit.

Nah, a state can decide to use preferential and then give the electors to the winner of that. Each state can do it how they want.

lol

But the same problem exists during the primaries too.

Don't fall for the multi-party meme. What happens is that each party becomes extremely elitist and impossible to get into as someone who wants to change things, so your only option is to create your own party. Something like Trump taking over the Republicans is only possible in a two party system.

And what happens after you create a new party, is that even if a lot of people vote for you, all the other parties fuck you over. See Sweden social democrats or whatever they are called, UK, UKIP, Germany AFD, France forgot the name of the right wing party.

Multi party systems are for cucks.

>The party was born out of an adult-industry lobby group, the Eros Association. Its leader, Fiona Patten, was formerly the association's CEO.
Jesus it just gets more hilarious

They are the worlds best and biggest shitposters

Dude these primaries were sometimes decided by a few hundred votes in each state. Literally every vote counted this time.

Let's take Bernie as an example of this though, his people donated tons of money and hours to his cause but inevitably didn't achieve the rest they wanted

Noe they have to choose between two candidates they hate, and they're (mostly) going to vote for Hillary even if they hate her and only agree on ~50% of things with her

Because it's retarded

That's because the DNC did illegal things. That's not a problem caused by a 2 party system, but by corruption. Also if they all collectively got off their asses and voted for him, enough so that the DNC couldn't rig it so much to offset it, he would have won.

But there were more than 2 people running, sometimes even 17 running, so people had to decide if they were wasting their vote if they voted for someone they didn't think could win in their state.

I'm stealing ameritards argument now

If it's so retarded why is it or other ideas like it used in so many other places? Oh yeah because those are places that want the one people really want most to win.

Primaries aren't winner takes all for like the first 3 months. Every vote counts at the beginning. There's no excuses that "hurr I hate both Trump and Hillary" if you didn't vote during the primary.

Because the majority of the planet is full of retards

Something about PR creating weak governments and shitty coalitions

You give me that option and I'm voting

1: Jill Stein
2: n/a
3: n/a

Some are winner take all and some aren't. But even the ones that aren't a lot of the time only give any votes to the top 3 or something like that. So the same problem as you have to decide if your person can be high enough to get any real votes or not. It's totally unnecessary and stupid that anyone should ever have to vote that way.

it's retarded. i'm imagining how it would work here since there's like 4 lefty parties that are practically the same and 1 conservative party. so i would have to give 4 lefty parties 2-3-4-5? i wouldn't be OK with any of them winning

some say its still soaring slowly towards the stratosphere

I like the Canadian Rhinoceros Party better

I'm not even talking about "the planet". I mean like organizations of academics and businesses and things like that. Shit even at the republican convention if nobody gets enough delegates they have second and third and fourth ballot to avoid this problem but they don't do the same thing in the original state votes. Really makes you think.

It would end up with the 2 parties still winning, but the other parties gaining a little bit more influence which they deserve and reflecting their actual support instead of it being artificially lowered.

The thing is though, because of preferential voting you end up with a ton of parties. There's no way Hanson's One Nation (AKA Fuck off were full party) or various independents (Xenophon) would survive outside of preferential voting. But because of it these people/parties actually won a fair few seats so we're not stuck with liberal or labour

That being said State elections don't require you to fill in all the boxes, you can just mark a 1 if you wish. That is the way the federal should be as well

The first states to vote are never winner take all. These first states can give candidates a lot of momentum. You have no argument, well people vote for the top 3, duh, that's what humans do. Same thing happens in a multi party system, imagine the clusterfuck of a primary, except now it's the real election. That's what a multi party system looks like. It sucks. Coalitions suck. All the established parties uniting against a new party with 25% votes sucks.

Giving people exactly 2 choices, which are determined by the people themselves is probably the best system we have right now.

Because our founding fathers thought we were idiots.

They...they're still right.

I googled weird political parties and there used to be a party called "American Vegetarian Party" there

Also I forgot that currently we have a party called "whisky party"

You forgot the part where the Sex Party get $800,000 in post election funding for getting so many votes.

So just mark your conservative party as 1 and leave the rest not filled. Preferential voting is not a tool to let the party you like win despite unpopularity.

You don't get it. The point is you should never have to calculate in who you think is going to be top 1 or top 2 or top 3 or anything. You should be able to just say who you like best and next best and next best. There is no reason to have a way of voting where it is even relevant to your vote who you think is likely to win. It is totally unnecessary. Why force people into that calculation when nothing is gained by doing it (except by the establishment people who are assumed to be most likely to win every time.)

Not to mention the delightful Icelandic Pirate Party

Anyone who has ever been to Ranger School knows how shitty pref voting is.

Would you care to elaborate?

How can it be shitty? If you don't like it you are free to just choose your top choice like you do now. But if someone wants to rank more they can. I don't see how anyone can find any reason to be against it really.

Because it's fucking retarded and gives you a nation like Germany or Sweden.

Because it doesn't work due to Arrow's Impossibility Theorem.

Two choose one is the best election mechanism.

The best part is non-ausfags think this is just a shitpost and don't understand the fact that there are people here who genuinely think like this

Also to add to that, a phenomenon sometimes happens (happened last election here) where the parliament was split nearly 50/50 between the main parties meaning these small parties basically battle it out to swing the policies to each party

But how do you do two choose one unless you make it against the law for anyone but two parties to run?

We have to shift the IQ distribution about 30 points to the right. The only way to do that is through scientific research.

>it doesn't work when there are three parties and tree voters
What if there are 10000000 voters and 20 parties? Do you think it could work then?

Kind of like exactly what swing states or swing counties do in our elections in the US right now.

Parties are bad period because it causes what you just said or what happens in the USA.

Should be outright banned.

This post is the poorest sense of both math, logic, and common sense I have ever seen.

Nah, we have pirate party too and I think Sweden has one also. They don't like copyright rights and want to protect freedom of speech

You think you need a high IQ to rank choices on a ballot?

XDDDDDDD

Voter 1: X
Voter 2: Y

Well looks like we've disproven first past the post as well

>35% votes one way and the other two get 32% of the vote
>Since they lost, 35% of the country chose the winner

There's literally no way around this, and the Founding Fathers knew this. Politicians are an aristocracy, not a fucking democracy. Go back and assfuck Alexander Hamilton if you don't want this system of government you cunt

...

Nothing in the Constitution says how each state runs their voting. They can use any kind of voting they want to decide who gets their electors.

I'm not talking about high IQs. 70 becomes 100, 80 becomes 110, 90 becomes 120, etc. These are not high IQs by any means, but they are higher.

In Ranger School you have to rank everyone in your squad, so you couldn't abstain and just vote:
1. Trump
2.
3.
4. etc

So what you basically do is try to make enough friends (in Ranger School) to have everyone vote for you in specific slots.

Friend A votes for me as 10, friend B votes for me as 9, friend C votes for me as 8, friend D votes for me as 7. This is rotated between the people in the squad so no one gets 'peered' out (failed that phase of Ranger School).

But that also makes it really easy to fuck you over if some people don't like you. If a group of 4 people (in a squad of say, 9) votes you at "1", it won't matter what sick plan you had with your buddies, there's a good chance you are going to get peered out.

That's not what would happen. One of candidates that got 32% would be eliminated, and his 32% would be distributed among remaining two. And the whole population will decide which of those two wins.

I only bring it up because it's a system that can be manipulated, and there's always going to be a Soros.

This would only work if you had someone like a Monarch sitting above appointing cabinet positions and what not because otherwise the highest positions in government just go to whichever elected representatives can bribe all of the others.

You can just vote for one candidate in preferential voting. Plus, the person voted for wins, not loses like in your case.

>Implying any state would change the 300 year old system that has no glaring issues to it

Who distributes that 32%? The fucking government? Lmao

its got to be swift and decisive like our wrath. >what you want a fight etheopia?!?!?!
*burns some niggers .
>theres a fucking election!?!?!?
the red guy always red !

What conversation are you having? You've lost me. My post had nothing to do with any of this.

>Who counts the votes? The fucking government? Lmao

You're either retarded or need to read what preferential voting is

People who voted. You rank candidates on your ballot. If your #1 is eliminated, your vote for #2 is effective.

>mfw you disagree with the man who chose to not become a monarch and felt opposite of you

Some states already changed it. Look how Maine and Nebraska do it. A lot of states have changed other things about it over the years. Very ignorant of history or a troll

You win and lose (there's a threshold for say, being elected, at 70%)

But I see your point.

Wouldn't that just mean people could jam nobodies through the vote because normal people vote for candidate X, but their ballots are intentionally edited to add other candidates to X

Read it again and again until you get it? The point is to elevate the dumbest, those who are easily pandered to and make any democracy hell, ie, the people voluntarily voting for Clinton or Trump.

Good God what an awful seat that must be.

Rigging the election is possible under any system

This would be stupidly easy to maniuplate though.
>"Oh 10% of the population voted for fucking Bernie? Better just drop that shit into Hillary cause oops programming glitch"
Fucking aussies

>Wouldn't that just mean people could jam nobodies through the vote because normal people vote for candidate X, but their ballots are intentionally edited to add other candidates to X
While that's true, since you left those blank, it means you don't care, and filling those won't matter much. The winner is still one candidate, and the score he or others get does not matter as long as he's the winner.

Choice between two is no choice at all.

Minumum, minumum you need 3 parties.

Were not all as corrupt as you tards. Why would it be any harder than just tearing up a ballot and replacing it with another?

That's not a disadvantage of preferential voting - what you described can be done with any voting system.

The way the voting is done makes it so no matter how smart you are you are in a confusing choice whether to vote for who you like most or who you like most that you think can win. It is not about intelligence. It is about that this is a real problem in how the voting is currently done.

>mfw as a Patrician I will be unable to vote in the proposed plebiscite

This. It is sad how brainwashed people are that they use arguments that bad to defend a shit system.

Sounds like a good idea.

It would be easier to disguise. Nobody would notice shit like "oh my ballot went from Trump to Hillary!" it would be a lot less noticable

Either way, there's precisely a 0% chance this will ever go beyond a handful of states changing the way they vote. Fuck off or go to Australia

We don't have electronic voting or electronic tallying here.

My issue with having several candidates instead of just a few is that less and less share of the nation determines the overall direction.

Instead of 50+% of voters(ignoring the people that couldn't be bothered to vote and thereby have worthless complaints), you end up with only 30% being necessary if three major candidates all have a good shot.

And it gets worse as the field is glutted. If you've got 10 candidates, and they're all more or less liked, you could end up with 11% of the fucking electorate overuling the will of the other 89%. Even if the system was working flawlessly and every voter was absolutely voting for their ideal candidate instead of the lesser of 10 evils. Less of the electorate is required to take the helm.

At least if it requires 50% of the participants to more or less agree, the incoming regime has more legitimacy.

Why are you so angry and swearing about it? I find that really interesting. Preference voting rustles your jimmies that much?