(January 8, 2013 at 9:38 am)BGChuckLee Wrote:

(January 8, 2013 at 9:37 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: See 2008.

What does that mean?

You didn't answer the question.

Sorry, you do remember 2008, right? It was such a huge traumatic event to our economy, just mentioning the year should be enough.

Or were things fairly serene in your gated community?

(January 8, 2013 at 10:04 am)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(January 8, 2013 at 9:38 am)BGChuckLee Wrote: What does that mean?

You didn't answer the question.

Sorry, you do remember 2008, right? It was such a huge traumatic event to our economy, just mentioning the year should be enough.

Or were things fairly serene in your gated community?

It was a natural results of socialism and the inevitable failure of a welfare state.

My background has nothing to do with this, just economics, nothing personal.

(January 7, 2013 at 7:28 am)Tiberius Wrote:

(January 7, 2013 at 7:13 am)The_Germans_are_coming Wrote: All in all, I have no problem with your proposal. But the "redistribution" of the votes is the only thing on which I have doughts.
If this process is not done by the electorate by giving those who voted D the chance to vote again for any candidate except D.

That is how it works though. By ranking the candidates, you are effectively saying "I'm voting for D, but if D doesn't get through, I want to vote for A, and if A doesn't get through, I want to vote for...etc."

Ranking has the advantage of allowing only one election, rather than having multiple elections as France does (which costs far more money). If you think about it, since no candidates can join the election between rounds, each subsequent round will have the same candidates as the last, minus one.

Indeed, if we were to separate voting out so that each round had a new vote, then it would re-introduce the problem of tactical voting, with people able to know the percentage distributions from the last rounds, and altering their vote accordingly.

I see the benefit of your system in a presidential election. But the voting part should be left to the voters and votes shouldn`t be redestributed by a post election administrative body.
If the ballot gives the opertunity to vote croos-party-lines in order to rank candidates it seems to be very usefull to me.

But I am still a bit uncomfortable with cross-party voting, even in a ranking system.

Quote:How? There is one election, rather than two (or more). If votes are computerized, the result can be generated in a very short amount of time. It's actually a very very short election process when done properly.

The voting count could take longer and the arrangement of who voted whom.

I would have to see an example of where it is done this way to be certain.

(January 8, 2013 at 10:28 am)BGChuckLee Wrote: It was a natural results of socialism and the inevitable failure of a welfare state.

Are we talking about the same thing?

I'm talking about the great crash in 2008 when Wall Street bundled toxic assets, sold them to unsuspecting traders with a AAA rating, eventually people wised up to the fact that the values were "toxic" (values were over-inflated) and panic ensued. The "perfect, self-regulating markets" I'd learned about as an MBA at Southern Methodist University, that Republicans assured us required no government oversight, came crashing down. But for Obama's recovery measures, we'd be remembering this time as The Second Great Depression.

But somehow welfare queens are to blame?

---

(January 8, 2013 at 10:28 am)BGChuckLee Wrote: My background has nothing to do with this, just economics, nothing personal.

Your background may be affecting you the same way mine was at one time before I got out into the real world. It's easy to buy into simple-minded Randian ideas of how the world should work when you don't know any actual poor people. You might discover, as I did, "Hey, they're not all lazy."

(January 8, 2013 at 10:36 am)The_Germans_are_coming Wrote: [quote='Tiberius' pid='382441' dateline='1357558088']
I see the benefit of your system in a presidential election. But the voting part should be left to the voters and votes shouldn`t be redestributed by a post election administrative body.
If the ballot gives the opertunity to vote croos-party-lines in order to rank candidates it seems to be very usefull to me.

But I am still a bit uncomfortable with cross-party voting, even in a ranking system.

Eurgh. You are still not getting it.

Voting IS left to the voters. They are ranking candidates instead of just voting for one. The votes aren't just redistributed at random by an administrative body; they are redistributed according to how the voter wanted his vote redistributed (which could be to multiple candidates over several rounds, or not at all).

Besides, it isn't a "post election" body doing it; technically, the election is still going on whilst the votes are counted and redistributed during the rounds.

Quote:The voting count could take longer and the arrangement of who voted whom.

I would have to see an example of where it is done this way to be certain.

The only way it would take longer is if everything was done by hand. I'm not suggesting that happen at all. If a computer were counting the votes and doing the calculations, the entire election could be sorted out very quickly indeed.

Ok I thought you were talking about a post election body.


If the ranking is done on the ballot I can see the benefits of it.

I gave examples of two ballots here: https://atheistforums.org/thread-16431-p...#pid382092

(January 8, 2013 at 9:38 am)BGChuckLee Wrote:

(January 8, 2013 at 9:37 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: See 2008.

What does that mean?

You didn't answer the question.

Just because you are too dense to understand the answer does not mean he did not give you an answer.

(January 8, 2013 at 10:50 am)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(January 8, 2013 at 10:28 am)BGChuckLee Wrote: It was a natural results of socialism and the inevitable failure of a welfare state.

Are we talking about the same thing?

I'm talking about the great crash in 2008 when Wall Street bundled toxic assets, sold them to unsuspecting traders with a AAA rating, eventually people wised up to the fact that the values were "toxic" (values were over-inflated) and panic ensued. The "perfect, self-regulating markets" I'd learned about as an MBA at Southern Methodist University, that Republicans assured us required no government oversight, came crashing down. But for Obama's recovery measures, we'd be remembering this time as The Second Great Depression.

But somehow welfare queens are to blame?

Yes DP. Welfare queens are the fault because they haven't given the last of their assets over.
As a member of the infamous Romney 47% myself (a disabled veteran), I do wonder sometimes why the horrendous attacks on those most poor in our society (including me). Food stamps are not a programme to support the poor: they are a programme to support farmers.
Oil companies just barely scraping by have subsidies that make welfare programmes pale by comparison.
And why did NASCAR need another injection of welfare aid in the Fiscal Cliff bill?