Except that the lack of a third candidate is partially because of the FPTP system. It’s a waste of time, money and energy to try to compete with the Dems and the Reps. In a ranked voting system, or even a two-round system like we have in France, I guarantee you you’d see more candidates, because people then wouldn’t just “vote useful”.
Except that the lack of a third candidate is partially because of the FPTP system.
Right, that’s what I said in my previous comment. Ranked Choice is an improvement, yes. Though, I think it still is too easy to push the winning vote to the more polar candidates. If the centrist doesn’t rile up passionate supporters (because what centrist does), they are more likely to be dropped in the first round even though they were ranked 1 or 2 for nearly everyone. I prefer Approval voting as my ideal alternative. It does tend to push more toward center, but if the idea is true democratic representation, then that would be the natural result, right? But anything is better than FPTP.
As I said elsewhere, if there is only two parties/candidates running for each of these seats and the districts are divided this way then there is no functional difference between Ranked Choice, Approval, Proportional, or First Past The Post. The results would be 100% identical in any of those systems. In this specific situation, the result is “perfect”, as it says. Under different circumstances, it would be less than perfect, but that is not how hypothetical work, my guy.
if there is only two parties/candidates running for each of these seats and the districts are divided this way
So, suppose these things were not immutable laws of nature, would a better representation the be possible?
If e.g. the candidates of our rectangle had 5 seats to compete for instead of one?
Your example is literally what is being illustrated. There is some disconnect you are suffering. There isn’t only one seat they are competing for. There are 5 districts with 5 seats and depending on how you divide the districts, fairly or intentionally gerrymandered, you can get a fair outcome or outcomes that heavily favor one party. Even if they WERE competing for one seat, then blue winning that seat would still be the correct outcome in this case, so even if your misunderstanding the hypothetical were accurate, I dont get why you have a problem with the end result.
Your example is literally what is being illustrated.
The graphic literally illustrates that one of two teams “wins”. In the “perfect” case that is blue.
here is some disconnect you are suffering. There isn’t only one seat they are competing for.
The disconnect being that the above example mentions nothing about the red districts getting anything.
That is an assumption you are making based on some real world system that is not depicted here.
My comment is based only on what the image shows. I understand that the real world may be different but the real world is not what I am commenting on.
I dont get why you have a problem with the end result.
I don’t criticize the result. I just don’t think it’s perfect.
People here keep telling me the system is bad but it’s the best we have.
If that is your definition of perfect that I suppose we just have a vastly different understanding of perfection.
The graphic literally illustrates that one of two teams “wins”. In the “perfect” case that is blue.
They win majority of the district. Not all of the seats. I don’t know why you’re are being so obtuse about this. It’s pretty apparent to everyone else. And it is exactly how districts in real life work
That is an assumption you are making based on some real world system that is not depicted here.
Yes, becuase the purpose of this info graphic is to show how Gerrymandering works in real life. Gerrymandering has nothing to do with taking individual seats. Ever. Period. It is about taking outweighed control of a multi-seat body. That is the ENTIRE point of gerrymandering, a subject that is not obscure in the slightest.
I don’t criticize the result. I just don’t think it’s perfect.
What then would be the “perfect” result between only two parties running, and 60% support going to the blue party? Whether for 1 seat or for 5 as IS SHOWN in this graphic?
People here keep telling me the system is bad but it’s the best we have.
If that is your definition of perfect that I suppose we just have a vastly different understanding of perfection.
I most certianly did not say that this is the best system we could have, but you confusion is because you are conflating vastly different things. When people are talking about different voting systems that would be better, that assumes that there is more than 2 choices in the matter. If there are only two, such as is in this example, the voting system resolves to being identical to First Past The Post, so it doesnt matter, FOR THIS ONE EXAMPLE. In real life, things are not that simple, but that doesnt matter when we are talking about a simplified hypothetical like this. That is the point.
Yes, becuase the purpose of this info graphic is to show how Gerrymandering works in real life
Yes, by changing voting groups in such a way that one party achieves a maximum of individual “wins” to achieve an overall “win”. That is all it shows, there are 50 people split into two colors, five districts and one winner. No seats anywhere.
Gerrymandering has nothing to do with taking individual seats.
Right, because it it the process of rearranging voting groups to affect the overall outcome and has nothing to do with what the winner gets.
in other words
Gerrymandering, (/ˈdʒɛrimændərɪŋ/ JERR-ee-man-dər-ing, originally /ˈɡɛrimændərɪŋ/ GHERR-ee-man-dər-ing)[1][2] defined in the contexts of representative electoral systems, is the political manipulation of electoral district boundaries to advantage a party, group, or socioeconomic class within the constituency.
or
gerrymandering, in U.S. politics, the practice of drawing the boundaries of electoral districts in a way that gives one political party an advantage over its rivals
or
gerrymandering, noun
an occasion when someone in authority changes the borders of an area in order to increase the number of people within that area who will vote for a particular party or person
What then would be the “perfect” result between only two parties running, and 60% support going to the blue party?
I never claimed I knew what a perfect system looked like or that perfection would be possible at all.
I don’t need to know how to solve all problems in the world to tell you that the world is not perfect.
1 seat or for 5 as IS SHOWN in this graphic?
Ok please take a big red marker or a graphic tool of your choice And draw a circle where on the graphic it SHOWS that red gets anything, besides abstract districts.
If you could highlight the fabled seats, that would certainly convince me that they are shown somewhere.
Whether the districts impart any sort of political influence beyond the tally of which team gets to be the overall winner, depends on completely different factors not part of the graphic.
you are conflating vastly different things
I am not conflating anything. I am deliberately ignoring anything not in the info-graphic that presumably wants to teach us something.
It only shows how different district shapes affect the outcome of which team “wins”.
You are the one conflating the abstract presentation on this graphic with some specific real-life situation.
I don’t understand it well, but I like your 2 round system.
What are some typical flaws with it that might not be obvious?
I’m also curious what is the best thing about it, in your opinion
It is better than FPTP, but not a great system either. The flaws are similar to FPTP: The final winner may not be the candidate that would be most approved by the pooulation.
The main arvantage of it is that you can go wilder during the first turn, and pick a small party that you truly support, in hope it passes to the second turn. That happens often enough. And if it doesn’t, then you vote for the least bad candidate in the second turn/the closest candidate to what you want.
That happens often enough. And if it doesn’t, then you vote for the least bad candidate in the second turn/the closest candidate to what you want.
That’s what I like about it that I thought it would solve for me. I don’t think the person I’ve voted for, in any election I’ve ever voted for, has won my riding (Canada)
I often have to choose between who I want to represent me, and voting for the strategic choice so that the leader of the country isn’t the worst choice
Except that the lack of a third candidate is partially because of the FPTP system. It’s a waste of time, money and energy to try to compete with the Dems and the Reps. In a ranked voting system, or even a two-round system like we have in France, I guarantee you you’d see more candidates, because people then wouldn’t just “vote useful”.
Right, that’s what I said in my previous comment. Ranked Choice is an improvement, yes. Though, I think it still is too easy to push the winning vote to the more polar candidates. If the centrist doesn’t rile up passionate supporters (because what centrist does), they are more likely to be dropped in the first round even though they were ranked 1 or 2 for nearly everyone. I prefer Approval voting as my ideal alternative. It does tend to push more toward center, but if the idea is true democratic representation, then that would be the natural result, right? But anything is better than FPTP.
So if improvements are possible then the current situation can by definition not be perfect, right?
As I said elsewhere, if there is only two parties/candidates running for each of these seats and the districts are divided this way then there is no functional difference between Ranked Choice, Approval, Proportional, or First Past The Post. The results would be 100% identical in any of those systems. In this specific situation, the result is “perfect”, as it says. Under different circumstances, it would be less than perfect, but that is not how hypothetical work, my guy.
So, suppose these things were not immutable laws of nature, would a better representation the be possible?
If e.g. the candidates of our rectangle had 5 seats to compete for instead of one?
Your example is literally what is being illustrated. There is some disconnect you are suffering. There isn’t only one seat they are competing for. There are 5 districts with 5 seats and depending on how you divide the districts, fairly or intentionally gerrymandered, you can get a fair outcome or outcomes that heavily favor one party. Even if they WERE competing for one seat, then blue winning that seat would still be the correct outcome in this case, so even if your misunderstanding the hypothetical were accurate, I dont get why you have a problem with the end result.
The graphic literally illustrates that one of two teams “wins”. In the “perfect” case that is blue.
The disconnect being that the above example mentions nothing about the red districts getting anything.
That is an assumption you are making based on some real world system that is not depicted here.
My comment is based only on what the image shows. I understand that the real world may be different but the real world is not what I am commenting on.
I don’t criticize the result. I just don’t think it’s perfect.
People here keep telling me the system is bad but it’s the best we have.
If that is your definition of perfect that I suppose we just have a vastly different understanding of perfection.
They win majority of the district. Not all of the seats. I don’t know why you’re are being so obtuse about this. It’s pretty apparent to everyone else. And it is exactly how districts in real life work
Yes, becuase the purpose of this info graphic is to show how Gerrymandering works in real life. Gerrymandering has nothing to do with taking individual seats. Ever. Period. It is about taking outweighed control of a multi-seat body. That is the ENTIRE point of gerrymandering, a subject that is not obscure in the slightest.
What then would be the “perfect” result between only two parties running, and 60% support going to the blue party? Whether for 1 seat or for 5 as IS SHOWN in this graphic?
I most certianly did not say that this is the best system we could have, but you confusion is because you are conflating vastly different things. When people are talking about different voting systems that would be better, that assumes that there is more than 2 choices in the matter. If there are only two, such as is in this example, the voting system resolves to being identical to First Past The Post, so it doesnt matter, FOR THIS ONE EXAMPLE. In real life, things are not that simple, but that doesnt matter when we are talking about a simplified hypothetical like this. That is the point.
Yes, by changing voting groups in such a way that one party achieves a maximum of individual “wins” to achieve an overall “win”. That is all it shows, there are 50 people split into two colors, five districts and one winner. No seats anywhere.
Right, because it it the process of rearranging voting groups to affect the overall outcome and has nothing to do with what the winner gets.
in other words
or
or
Ok please take a big red marker or a graphic tool of your choice And draw a circle where on the graphic it SHOWS that red gets anything, besides abstract districts.
If you could highlight the fabled seats, that would certainly convince me that they are shown somewhere.
Whether the districts impart any sort of political influence beyond the tally of which team gets to be the overall winner, depends on completely different factors not part of the graphic.
I am not conflating anything. I am deliberately ignoring anything not in the info-graphic that presumably wants to teach us something.
It only shows how different district shapes affect the outcome of which team “wins”.
You are the one conflating the abstract presentation on this graphic with some specific real-life situation.
deleted by creator
I don’t understand it well, but I like your 2 round system. What are some typical flaws with it that might not be obvious? I’m also curious what is the best thing about it, in your opinion
It is better than FPTP, but not a great system either. The flaws are similar to FPTP: The final winner may not be the candidate that would be most approved by the pooulation.
The main arvantage of it is that you can go wilder during the first turn, and pick a small party that you truly support, in hope it passes to the second turn. That happens often enough. And if it doesn’t, then you vote for the least bad candidate in the second turn/the closest candidate to what you want.
That’s what I like about it that I thought it would solve for me. I don’t think the person I’ve voted for, in any election I’ve ever voted for, has won my riding (Canada)
I often have to choose between who I want to represent me, and voting for the strategic choice so that the leader of the country isn’t the worst choice