We Should Move To A Playoff System.

[dUSt]

September vote:

Republican Bracket = 3 republicans with 1 independent wild card
Democrat Bracket = 3 Democrats with 1 independent wild card

October vote:
Two remaining winners of first round from each side

November vote:
The president

[dUSt]

Oh, and we should also vote by calling an 800 number.

[brianthephysicist]

I think you're missing out on the beauty of politics. It's not chocolate vs vanilla. There's 64 other flavors out there you haven't even mentioned.

[img]http://i3.squidoocdn.com/resize/squidoo_images/590/draft_lens17742864module161619302photo_1347235830a.gif[/img]

A playoff system only serves to reinforce the two party system as it stands. Plus every political party already has their own self-contained playoffs. It's called the primaries.

If you enjoy one of the "main two" candidates, feel free to vote for them. If you would like to sample another, that's okay too. Just make sure whatever you vote for aligns with your *hopefully* well formed conscience.

Oh and have some ice cream to congratulate yourself for voting.

[img]http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/askville/291827_9194202_mywrite/ice_cream.gif[/img]

[dUSt]

Underdogs have better chances in a playoff system.

The system as it is setup now is like college football, where only the two "best" teams compete in the championship game at the end.

[Aloysius]

to avoid the costliness of so many election events some form of what is called "preferential voting", which I think in some form would actually be a pretty good idea. Basically you would put a number next to each name on a ballot listing your order of preference. For instance, say Ron Paul had run third party and Gary Johnson was also running and also Mitt Romney and Barack Obama and Jill Stein were all still running and had found their ways onto my ballot. Here's how my ballot might have looked:

[ 3 ] Mitt Romney
[ 1 ] Ron Paul
[ 2 ] Gary Johnson
[ 5 ] Barack Obama
[ 4 ] Jill Stein

In this scenario, the votes of first preference are counted first. Whoever gets the least number of first preference votes is eliminated, and everyone whose first preference was for the one who is eliminated gets their next preference counted; and the person with the lowest number including those next preferences gets eliminated, and then whoever's candidate they were being counted for in that round got eliminated, their vote would drop down to their next preference. Basically it's a system that includes an instant runoff, meaning that the entire two-party logic is completely subverted. You can't tell me not to vote for Ron Paul because you fear that it will risk making Mitt Romney lose to Barack Obama, because I'll be sure to order my preferences so that Mitt Romney is above Barack Obama in my preferences and therefore my vote is [i]unable [/i]to hurt Mitt Romney's chances against Barack Obama... your only diehard argument to me could be "make sure to put Mitt Romney as a higher preference than Barack Obama or Jill Stein, we really don't want either of them elected!". No one can be just a "spoiler" vote (according to the two party logic) because in the end every single vote will be divided between two candidates in the final automatic runoff, so you can feel absolutely free to vote for your true preference.

IF your true preference doesn't win, your vote goes to your next preference; if your next preference doesn't win, your vote goes to your next preference, down the line.

Edited November 6, 2012 by Aloysius

[dUSt]

Woa, that is an amazing idea. Why haven't we done it?

[Archaeology cat]

I agree, dUSt.

[Aloysius]

yeah it would be really amesome. hard to change things though, and neither the Republicans or the Democrats are likely to promote the idea, the current system is much more beneficial to them. I think there are various versions of preferential voting in local Tennessee elections, Ireland, and Australia... at least that's what I remember from a Wikipedia article.

the great thing is the US Constitution does not actually proscribe any particular form of voting, preferential voting would be entirely constitutional, so states are perfectly free to institute such systems for their ballots. of course, unless all of the states did it, there would still be the issue of fear-mongering about spoiler votes (basically you'd better vote for Romney as your #1 preference or else you risk giving our state's electoral votes to someone other than Romney and spoiling the election against him)... perhaps any individual state would have to toggle with its elector binding laws if it were to experiment with a system like this until such a time as the rest of the country started following suit. actually, it would be a pretty epic Constitutional Amendment if we could make it the national voting system, it'd be the best improvement to the Constitution since the 12th amendment, actually even better, maybe the best improvement since the Bill of Rights.

[XIX]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1352215911' post='2505138']
September vote:

Republican Bracket = 3 republicans with 1 independent wild card
Democrat Bracket = 3 Democrats with 1 independent wild card

October vote:
Two remaining winners of first round from each side

November vote:
The president
[/quote]
It should be a crossover, so you have R vs. D in the first round.

Quarterfinals:

(4R) Ron Paul vs. (1D) Barack Obama
(2R) Rick Santorum vs. (3D) Hilary Clinton
(1R) Mitt Romney vs. (4D) Andrew Cuomo
(3R) Newt Gingrich vs. (2D) Joe Biden

If it goes according to seed, then you have Romney vs. Biden and Obama vs. Santorum in the semis. You could even have the losers face each other in a 3rd place consolation, just for kicks.

[brianthephysicist]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1352231074' post='2505237']
to avoid the costliness of so many election events some form of what is called "preferential voting", which I think in some form would actually be a pretty good idea. Basically you would put a number next to each name on a ballot listing your order of preference. For instance, say Ron Paul had run third party and Gary Johnson was also running and also Mitt Romney and Barack Obama and Jill Stein were all still running and had found their ways onto my ballot. Here's how my ballot might have looked:

[ 3 ] Mitt Romney
[ 1 ] Ron Paul
[ 2 ] Gary Johnson
[ 5 ] Barack Obama
[ 4 ] Jill Stein

In this scenario, the votes of first preference are counted first. Whoever gets the least number of first preference votes is eliminated, and everyone whose first preference was for the one who is eliminated gets their next preference counted; and the person with the lowest number including those next preferences gets eliminated, and then whoever's candidate they were being counted for in that round got eliminated, their vote would drop down to their next preference. Basically it's a system that includes an instant runoff, meaning that the entire two-party logic is completely subverted. You can't tell me not to vote for Ron Paul because you fear that it will risk making Mitt Romney lose to Barack Obama, because I'll be sure to order my preferences so that Mitt Romney is above Barack Obama in my preferences and therefore my vote is [i]unable [/i]to hurt Mitt Romney's chances against Barack Obama... your only diehard argument to me could be "make sure to put Mitt Romney as a higher preference than Barack Obama or Jill Stein, we really don't want either of them elected!". No one can be just a "spoiler" vote (according to the two party logic) because in the end every single vote will be divided between two candidates in the final automatic runoff, so you can feel absolutely free to vote for your true preference.

IF your true preference doesn't win, your vote goes to your next preference; if your next preference doesn't win, your vote goes to your next preference, down the line.
[/quote]
Mind = blown

That's seriously amazing