Stupid Voting Systems - Caucus Edition

[andrewducker]

It occurs to me, looking at this image of the voting for Republican
Presidential Candidate
that they really, really need a better voting system.

Beause the aim of the Caucuses is to get a candidate that The Republican
Party can stand behind, and so far what they've got is a candidate that
less than 25% are willing to definitively vote for.

Using AV you'd know whether the Gingrich voters would all move to Romney,
or if they'd rather split off to Ron Paul and put him in the lead. Is the
vote going to split 50% "Romney", 50% "Anyone but Romney", or is it nearer
25%/75%? Would a load more people really have vote for Huntsman, if only
they hadn't thought he was doomed?

What you've got is a lot of money being spent and a lot of energy being
expended, all for information that's not at all clear. Thank goodness that
this time around it's only the Republicans that are doing it.

Comments

[ciphergoth]

For a single-winner election, use Condorcet, not AV.

[andrewducker]

It will never, ever catch on until the average person is smart enough to really grasp it. Which probably means never.

[matgb]

Thing is, they sorta do use a preferential system.

I studied this ten years ago, 2nd year module, not at great depth, memory may be faulty, etc, but from what I recall, you turn up to the location of the caucus and talk to people there.

Then they do a go stand in the right place in the room thing, and headcount. At that point, people're given a chance to move to a different group, especially if it's obvious their chosen candidate is doomed. It tends to accentuate leaders and drive the losers down to hardcore support. But Iowa, being always first and always with a caucus, is always harder for that to work in as all the candidates are pushing hard and the voters know the system fairly well normally.

NB: I think the entire system is fucked up top to bottom, but the caucus system is the least worst aspect of the US system. Really.

[matgb]

Follow up. I'm wrong-it's the democrats who sorta do this, the Repubs just have a straight vote in each precinct and report them directly.

The Dem system is a bit weird, you need to get 15% to stay in for that precinct, so a very popular elsewhere but not liked in Nowheresville can't get delegates there, etc.

But it is a better system, so I like the Dem version of how Iowa is done, not the Repub version.

[a-pawson.livejournal.com]

I suppose it's AV of a sort. As candidates drop out their votes in future primaries will move to a more popular candidate.

The results from the Iowa Caucus are non-binding, so the state's delegates may end up voting for whoever they like. The system of selecting Presidential candidates is so complicated it is almost impossible to understand. Not only does each state have its own methods/rules, the votes of many states are non-binding meaning the delegates at the party convention can vote for whoever they like regardless of who the voters in their state liked.

But yes, it really, really needs a better voting system. One which is at least comprehensible would be a start.

[andrewducker]

Oh yes, after all of the faff the delegates can then ignore it. So it means a lot (in that Rick Perry will now almost certainly give up) and nothing (in that it's not at all binding).

[bart-calendar.livejournal.com]

Why would Rick Perry give up? He still has texas businessmen handing him money and no republican candidate can with without texas. So, if he stays in one of two things can happen:

1. You get a divided convention that he can win over by promising tons of pork barrel projects to delegates.

Or

2. Whoever is likely to win the nomination offers him the vice presidency in exchange for him not forcing a floor battle.

[anton-p-nym.livejournal.com]

You're forgetting that there's, what, another 49 of these state primaries to go.

It's not a FPTP system, it's a multiple run-off system until you do get a candidate with a simple majority of delegates.

-- Steve thinks this is why they run so long. Eight rounds of voting times fifty primaries equals ow ow brain stop that.

[andrewducker]

But it's not multiple run-off with the same people. It's different people voting different times, with different cultures and different concerns. The fact that this is how the parties choose their candidates is baffling to me.

[bart-calendar.livejournal.com]

Choosing candidates this way is a very, very new thing. Until the 1970s the primaries and conventions were just for show and a way to raise money for the various political parties. The party elders would meet in a back room and then come out and tell the delegates who to vote for.

It wasn't until the back room people gave America Nixon that they changed the system.

Not surprisingly, since then the eventual candidates have suffered in quality. (Even compared to Nixon.)

The back room system was much, much better, though with information moving so freely these days would be very hard to go back to.

AV?

[lsanderson.livejournal.com]

You cannot seriously expect conservative republicans to endorse anything invented after 1800. ;-)

[spacelem.livejournal.com]

I thought that after a well fought campaign, the British public clearly understood that AV was confusing, expensive, and (more importantly) undemocratic, as the losing candidate always wins.

Why would the Republicans ever want to use a system like that?

[chess]

I've yet to hear a convincing explanation for this 'the losing candidate always wins' assertion which wasn't basically 'but the left will not be held down by the vote-splitting power of refusing to compromise into one party any more and then they'll win'?

[naath.livejournal.com]

It just means "I have a strongly-held belief that the person with the plurality of the votes is OBVIOUSLY the winner and if you believe otherwise you are WRONG". But dressed up nice.

[fearmeforiampink]

I still think the Yes campaign should have lead with a footrace based advert of pamphlet, showing the 100m dash becoming a shorter and shorter race the more people were running…

[steer.livejournal.com]

Actually, I think the informal slackness of the caucus system is a major advantage over a formal voting system like AV. Consider, nobody actually HAS to drop out... If it is (as you suggest) the case that a low scoring candidate has massive support in second place and is genuinely the "preferred" candidate then this system reasonably well caters for that if the candidate can argue for it.

[andrewducker]

I don't see how it caters to that, or what the candidate would argue.

"Vote for me, the other candidate you like is a few percentage points behind me and you like me more than the person who is a few percentage points ahead!" isn't terribly convincing, and you lose the information about which candidate they would actually like to vote for.

[apostle-of-eris.livejournal.com]

In this particular case, it's "Who revolts me the least?" Having to rank the rankest would be cruel and unusual punishment.
Come to think of it, maybe not. Maybe the 'base" needs to be punished for what they have allowed to be done to "their" party.

[andrewducker]

Well, under most ranking systems you could just stop after you've reached the point of maximum nose-holding :->

[naath.livejournal.com]

I thought "caucus" meant something subtly different to "primary election" in some way that I can't even bother to look up... so obviously I care a lot about US politics...

[bemused-leftist.livejournal.com]

It certainly does. A state primary election (spring) is run pretty much like the general election (November). You drop by the poll, mark a ballot, leave; or mail it in. The candidate with the most votes is the clear winner.

In a caucus, you and other registered voters all meet in the same room at the same time for a couple of hours or longer, and argue and bargain. The results (delegates elected) can be split between all the candidates according to how many votes each one got (perhaps after several rounds).

[skreidle.livejournal.com]

Thank goodness that this time around it's only the Republicans that are doing it.

I tell you what, though, if there were a way to run a Dem against the incumbent President, there'd be plenty of people for it who are sorely disappointed in Obama's performance.

[andrewducker]

There's always http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darcy_Richardson

[charleysjob.livejournal.com]

Interestingly, if there had been a Democratic party caucus in Iowa, it would have worked more/less your way.
Because obviously the caucus vs. primary issue wasn't confusing enough to begin with, the Dems and GOP have different rules. In a Democratic Iowa caucus, any candidate with less than 15% of the vote (in each location, individually) is eliminated, and his voters have to move (physically - it's done by standing in groups) to a second-choice candidate.

[andrewducker]

Yeah, that would make much more sense!