Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Another way of voting

#1
C C Offline
https://plus.maths.org/content/another-way-voting

EXCERPT: The people of ancient Sparta apparently had an interesting way of electing their leaders: candidates faced an audience and the one who got the loudest cheers won. While this may seem just as crude as the UK voting system (which has come under much attack lately), there is a crucial difference. The UK system is based on the "one person, one vote" principle: every voter gets to pick one candidate and their opinion about the others remains unheard. With the cheering system, by contrast, people can voice their feeling about all of the candidates, shouting louder for some than for others.

Today there are people who suggest that something similar may provide a good way of electing modern leaders too. The idea is, not to get people to cheer, but to allow voters to rate each candidate on some scale, say from 0 to 10. It means that voters don't have to choose a single candidate, or even rank candidates in order of preference. To find a winner, add up the ratings for each a candidate: the candidate with the highest total wins. It's a voting system used in some sports competitions, for example figure skating, but not in important political elections.

Proponents of such grading systems, as they are called, argue that they have some obvious advantages....
Reply
#2
stryder Offline
Candidacy systems are Archaic.

What such things as social networking and the internet have proven over the years is that people in general want a greater voice and interaction with decision making far beyond any candidate schema. Voting for one person or party will never truly allow us the full freedoms that we desire and it's often slated as being down to the compromise of how difficult it is to full-fill everyone's wish.

The problems that currently exist are that the current system has tried to handle too many people, there is always some minority that are upset at being ignored for that reason.

To generate a larger cross-section, the only suggestion is to actually reduce the size of governance to match that of the people that are wanting to be governed. In the UK they have slowly started to get some points of this by suggesting that there should be more "Localised decision making" as opposed to everything having to go through London. This means that people could potentially be more community driven with the understanding that what isn't allowed in one community might well be allowed somewhere else.

It's the very basis of the original concepts of Democracy and state economy mechanics, where one state could be the producer of wheat and another of fish and trade could be established between each since they don't compete with one another.

The problem arises however that our opinions aren't weighed, just which candidates we pick and they can chop and change their manifesto's to suit the climate which is why politicians are often revered as "Fork Tongue Silver Serpents". (Civil servants)
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)