On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 10:42 PM, VoteFair ElectionMethods@votefair.org
wrote:

Before you publish that article, please check out VotePact.org

On 09/19/2016 06:42 AM, VoteFair wrote:

Come to think of it, why do so few people in non-swing-states vote for
third-party candidates? It seems that if you're in a safe state, your
vote doesn't matter, and so you can vote for whoever you want for the
signal effect.

Well, that clearly doesn't work if enough voters go third party that the
state is no longer safe. But the voters should be able to use polls to
determine whether they are in a safe state.

On 9/19/2016 3:57 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:

= = = = =
[KB]  Aside from the fact that realistically any single vote doesn't
matter, IMO people in the U.S. vote D or R repeatedly because that's all
they know.

Most mainstream media barely acknowledge the existence of any other
candidates or parties.  So most people don't know how to think of
anything except voting for one of the two major party candidates,
assuming a race is even contested.  And if they do know, most of them
are afraid they'll "help" elect the evil Other candidate if they don't
vote for their major party candidate.

This year may be an exception in the Presidential race in some states if
the polling for the Libertarian Johnson/Weld ticket turns into votes in
the same proportion.  But in the past, there's very often been a pretty
steep decline for a relatively popular "third party" candidate when
people actually vote and think more about that evil Other.  That
happened in Minnesota in 2002.  About three weeks before election day,
Tim Penny, the Independence Party candidate, was leading in the polls
with about 33%.  When the votes were counted, though, he received only
16.2%.

And even though almost everyone considers Minnesota safe for Clinton
this year, Democrats here are aghast at the idea of anyone here voting
for another candidate such as Green Party candidate Jill Stein lest
"Trump win", to quote them.  Fourteen years later, not much has changed.

• Ken Bearman, Minneapolis MN

On 9/19/2016 1:57 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:

In the U.S., third-party presidential candidates are not really
qualified for the job.

That's different from third parties in nations that have PR
(proportional representation).  In those countries the parties are large
enough to offer some good alternative candidates.

BTW, I saw video segments of some of the candidates at the Libertarian
convention, and those candidates were very, very, non-qualified.  And
the winner, Gary Johnson, is not popular with many of the people in the
Libertarian party.

As for Jill Stein, I'm told by someone who plans to vote for her that
she has lots of weaknesses, and that it's just a protest vote.

In other words, too many votes would give the wrong signal, namely that
lots of people like non-qualified candidates.

Richard Fobes

On 9/19/2016 1:57 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:

On 9/19/2016 12:00 AM, Jan Kok wrote:

Even if two people agree to cast ballots that cancel each other out,
that's still leaving the decision up to the other voters in that state.

Participating in your VotePact approach requires finding someone to
trust.  And the trusting not only applies to trusting who the person
will actually vote for, but trusting that the person is not also making
a similar arrangement with yet another voter.

In other words, it's really, really hard to find someone you trust who
also has the opposite political preference.

Expressed as a Venn diagram, the overlap between someone I trust and
someone who has the opposite political view is empty.

Here's part of what I hope to convey in the article:

A single-mark ballot is not asking for the voter's first choice.  If it
was, it would also ask for a second choice.

Instead a single-mark ballot is equivalent to being given a marble and
being asked to put it into the bucket with their "preferred" candidate's
name on the bucket.  And only the two heaviest buckets will have their
marbles counted.  The other buckets might as well be bottomless.

Richard Fobes

On 9/19/2016 12:00 AM, Jan Kok wrote:

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------

Subject: Re: [EM] Cartoon about single-mark ballots

From: "VoteFair" ElectionMethods@VoteFair.org

Date: Fri, September 23, 2016 1:33 pm

To: "election-methods@lists.electorama.com" election-methods@lists.electorama.com

it's really the same reason why so many people watch crap on TV or why so many listen to music that's crap or eat crap at McD or buy crap at WalMart.
3rd party candidates are like unknown indie bands.

that's a matter of opinion.
this year it should be obvious that even a major party candidate is hardly qualified for the job. �but i agree with you that neither Gary Johnson nor Jill Stein are qualified.
i think in 2000 (and i am still pissed at him
for running that year) Ralph Nader would have been qualified for the job.
and in 1980, most certainly John Anderson was qualified.

--
�

r b-j � � � � � � � � �rbj@audioimagination.com
�

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 11:56 AM, VoteFair ElectionMethods@votefair.org
wrote:

I don't understand your point. Whether you and another person vote for
Clinton and Trump, or make a pact and vote for Stein and/or Johnson
instead, the election is still decided by the other voters in the state.

The exception would be if enough people used the Vote Pact idea that Stein
or Johnson won. But that would be a good outcome from your point of view,
right? Otherwise, why did you enter into the vote pact?

Participating in your VotePact approach requires finding someone to trust.

This is addressed at http://www.votepact.org/about/ under "The Issue of
Trust." You can get absentee ballots, fill them out in each other's
presence and mail them together. Or you can go to the polls together and
check each other's ballots before turning them in.

In other words, it's really, really hard to find someone you trust who also

In a swing state, it shouldn't be that hard to find your opposite. As for
trust, see above.

�
this appears to be the very same thing as the Nader Trader thingie we had going 16 years ago. �in fact, i was a Nader Trader, i voted for Nader in Vermont, which was a Gore-safe state in exchange for Nader supporter in, i think the state was Washington, to vote for Gore.
�the purpose was to try to prevent W from winning yet to keep Nader's popular vote count, such as it was, up.
�i found out since then that i may have violated my "Freeman's oath" in Vermont�https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter%27s_oath_or_affirmation . �i think
that the oath means that my vote is my vote and not someone else's vote.
after the stolen election of 2000, the insulting Bush v. Gore decision, the fact that Nader had 97000 votes in Florida (as i recall) and the margin W had over Gore was 537 (this is all out of nearly 6 million) left such
a bitter taste in my mouth that i am unmotivated to do that sorta thing again.
i am soooo disgusted by the current U.S. election. � the specter of President Combover is the most alarming, of course. �Hillary is very unexciting. �the media is doing a shit job. �whenever
there is soooo much material for the comedians, you have to know that something is not well.
:-
yuck.
�
r b-j

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------

Subject: Re: [EM] Cartoon about single-mark ballots

From: "Jan Kok" jan.kok.5y@gmail.com

Date: Fri, September 23, 2016 4:08 pm

To: ElectionMethods@votefair.org

Cc: "election-methods@lists.electorama.com" election-methods@lists.electorama.com

With our current use of single-mark ballots, candidates (of any party)
who would be good problem-solving leaders (instead of special-interest
puppets) are rare.

If single-mark ballots were banned (which includes not using the
closed-list PR methods that dominate in Europe), there would be many
more very qualified candidates.  (The better the counting method, the
better the candidates.)

In the future, if there is still a U.S. presidential general election,
there are likely to be five or six or seven good choices on the ballot.
Better ballots (and better counting methods) will enable the best
candidate to be chosen.  And better ballots will enable
far-better-motivated people to get into Congress, which then makes some
of those congressmen/congresswomen eligible to run for president.

The fact that there are so few better candidates (Ralph Nader, John
Anderson, John Edwards before his infidelity), and the fact that they
are spread out over so many years (with so few in current times), means
that our current method for identifying popular leaders is so very, very
flawed.

Richard Fobes

On 9/23/2016 12:03 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote: