Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(American Thinker)   The case for changing the rules if you can't win   (americanthinker.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, Constitution Party, Louisiana, Alaska Independence Party, Democrat Jon Test, open primary, Al Franken, Republican Norm Coleman, electoral law  
•       •       •

2997 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Aug 2014 at 12:36 PM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



104 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-08-25 09:54:00 AM  
lolz.

"In 2008, Mark Begich won in Alaska with 47.8% of the vote, while Republican Ted Stevens earned 46.6% and Bob Bird of the Alaska Independence Party, endorsed by Ron Paul, won 4.2%."

Hmmmm, I wonder how they felt about that sort-of thing in the 2000 Presidential election?
 
2014-08-25 10:24:54 AM  
it's the Republican way
 
2014-08-25 10:32:49 AM  

ragekage: lolz.

"In 2008, Mark Begich won in Alaska with 47.8% of the vote, while Republican Ted Stevens earned 46.6% and Bob Bird of the Alaska Independence Party, endorsed by Ron Paul, won 4.2%."

Hmmmm, I wonder how they felt about that sort-of thing in the 2000 Presidential election?


This for both sides. Democrats biatched up a storm at Ralph Nader
 
2014-08-25 10:34:21 AM  

ManateeGag: it's the Republican way


This.  I'm kinda surprised that some GOP congressman hasn't yet put forth an amendment to the constitution that counts the votes of Democrats as three fifths of a REAL AMERICAN vote.
 
2014-08-25 10:38:13 AM  

ArkAngel: ragekage: lolz.

"In 2008, Mark Begich won in Alaska with 47.8% of the vote, while Republican Ted Stevens earned 46.6% and Bob Bird of the Alaska Independence Party, endorsed by Ron Paul, won 4.2%."

Hmmmm, I wonder how they felt about that sort-of thing in the 2000 Presidential election?

This for both sides. Democrats biatched up a storm at Ralph Nader


The proposed solution that I heard from Democrats was instant runoff voting.  The American Thinker proposal is open primaries, and I'm not entirely sure what the effect that would have.
 
2014-08-25 11:05:28 AM  
I support the idea of a multi-vote system.  Simply vote for as many people as you like on the ballot.  You add up all the votes and the person with the most votes win.   If you really hate one party/candidate because of a particular issue, you could only vote for all/many of the other candidates on the ballot.  First, it would help you guys move away from the two party oligarchy.  Second, you would end up with leaders that more people liked and who were more moderate and less divisive.
 
2014-08-25 11:18:53 AM  

mrshowrules: I support the idea of a multi-vote system.  Simply vote for as many people as you like on the ballot.  You add up all the votes and the person with the most votes win.   If you really hate one party/candidate because of a particular issue, you could only vote for all/many of the other candidates on the ballot.  First, it would help you guys move away from the two party oligarchy.  Second, you would end up with leaders that more people liked and who were more moderate and less divisive.


Approval voting is a good system, and if anything, even easier than our current plurality voting (and no spoiled ballots!).
 
2014-08-25 11:27:21 AM  

Snarfangel: mrshowrules: I support the idea of a multi-vote system.  Simply vote for as many people as you like on the ballot.  You add up all the votes and the person with the most votes win.   If you really hate one party/candidate because of a particular issue, you could only vote for all/many of the other candidates on the ballot.  First, it would help you guys move away from the two party oligarchy.  Second, you would end up with leaders that more people liked and who were more moderate and less divisive.

Approval voting is a good system, and if anything, even easier than our current plurality voting (and no spoiled ballots!).


Also, you should get a unanimous vote receipt when you vote.  A little piece of paper with a short string of characters.  You can throw it out or keep it.  All votes should be posted on a web-site with the corresponding receipt/code.  That way you can see/verify that your vote went through.
 
2014-08-25 12:14:18 PM  

ArkAngel: ragekage: lolz.

"In 2008, Mark Begich won in Alaska with 47.8% of the vote, while Republican Ted Stevens earned 46.6% and Bob Bird of the Alaska Independence Party, endorsed by Ron Paul, won 4.2%."

Hmmmm, I wonder how they felt about that sort-of thing in the 2000 Presidential election?

This for both sides. Democrats biatched up a storm at Ralph Nader


nope
I biatched about people in floriduh VOTING for ralph nader.
I biatched about algore not being able to win his home state!! (why didnt he have Clinton spend all his time in tennessee getting out the voted for Al?

But I never biatched that Al won the popular ... That is a fact. And not relevant. 

Both sides go into every election knowing in advance what the voting system is for that election.
If they did nothing to FIX the system before the election, well, STFU when you lose.

/why dont we all vote by mail? for all elections?
/98% cheaper. no need for VOTER ID. less chance of tampering with votes. paper trail for recounts. no chance for locals to fark with elections as all votes are counted by an independent agency in a central location.
/of course this will never happen. or not any day soon.
 
2014-08-25 12:40:43 PM  

ragekage: lolz.

"In 2008, Mark Begich won in Alaska with 47.8% of the vote, while Republican Ted Stevens earned 46.6% and Bob Bird of the Alaska Independence Party, endorsed by Ron Paul, won 4.2%."

Hmmmm, I wonder how they felt about that sort-of thing in the 2000 Presidential election?


Not as much considering Mr. "Internet Is A Series Of Tubes" lost all his clout thanks to guilt by association with a certain woman named Sarah Palin.
 
2014-08-25 12:42:11 PM  

mrshowrules: I support the idea of a multi-vote system.  Simply vote for as many people as you like on the ballot.  You add up all the votes and the person with the most votes win.   If you really hate one party/candidate because of a particular issue, you could only vote for all/many of the other candidates on the ballot.  First, it would help you guys move away from the two party oligarchy.  Second, you would end up with leaders that more people liked and who were more moderate and less divisive.


I like the priority voting system. Given 5 candidates (more then that gets hard to handle) you rank order them by choice. The top candidate gets 5 points, the second 4 points and so on. You have to decide sort the five candidates and cannot leave any unchosen.

In cases where more than five candidates want to run, open primary 60 days ahead of time and the top five move on to the election.
 
2014-08-25 12:42:34 PM  
Another one? WTH?

www.mindhuestudio.com
 
2014-08-25 12:42:51 PM  
American Thinker threads should start with a summary of the article for those of us who refuse to click on that website.
 
2014-08-25 12:43:16 PM  

SphericalTime: ArkAngel: ragekage: lolz.

"In 2008, Mark Begich won in Alaska with 47.8% of the vote, while Republican Ted Stevens earned 46.6% and Bob Bird of the Alaska Independence Party, endorsed by Ron Paul, won 4.2%."

Hmmmm, I wonder how they felt about that sort-of thing in the 2000 Presidential election?

This for both sides. Democrats biatched up a storm at Ralph Nader

The proposed solution that I heard from Democrats was instant runoff voting.  The American Thinker proposal is open primaries, and I'm not entirely sure what the effect that would have.


You'd have a lot more people voting to sabotage the other side.
 
2014-08-25 12:44:03 PM  
Wow they're really unpacking the hell out of the crying towel aren't they.
 
2014-08-25 12:46:05 PM  

mrshowrules: Snarfangel: mrshowrules: I support the idea of a multi-vote system.  Simply vote for as many people as you like on the ballot.  You add up all the votes and the person with the most votes win.   If you really hate one party/candidate because of a particular issue, you could only vote for all/many of the other candidates on the ballot.  First, it would help you guys move away from the two party oligarchy.  Second, you would end up with leaders that more people liked and who were more moderate and less divisive.

Approval voting is a good system, and if anything, even easier than our current plurality voting (and no spoiled ballots!).

Also, you should get a unanimous vote receipt when you vote.  A little piece of paper with a short string of characters.  You can throw it out or keep it.  All votes should be posted on a web-site with the corresponding receipt/code.  That way you can see/verify that your vote went through.


vote by mail
it has a unique code on it
you write that code down or make a copy
you check online later ...

paper voting is the only way to have valid recounts


What's more interesting is that you can create a voting system to help anyone>
Multi-vote helps one groups sometimes
weighted-voting helps other groups sometimes
plurality helps other groups
majority helps other groups

no one group is helped more or less by any of the systems
depends on a given race.

for example, multi-vote system might have given the majority of the nader votes to al gore, giving al gore the election in 2000.

probably one of the reasons that we dont change the voting system, is that both sides agree that it wont help them enough to make it worth taking the risk.

vote by mail please !!
 
2014-08-25 12:46:40 PM  
Wow, that's not even hyperbole. "States controlled by Republicans ought to adopt this sort of electoral system as a way of preventing the left from winning elections that the majority of voters really do not want it to win."

'14-16 is going to be so much fun.
 
2014-08-25 12:47:08 PM  
leftist Democrat.
 
2014-08-25 12:48:35 PM  
I've said it before and I'll say it again -

"There is NOTHING Republicans fear more than an honest count."
 
2014-08-25 12:51:17 PM  
The left understands this and is actually helping fund some of these candidates.

3.bp.blogspot.com

Huh, what do ya know about that.
 
2014-08-25 12:51:25 PM  
I like this bit:
"States controlled by Republicans ought to adopt this sort of electoral system as a way of preventing the left from winning elections that the majority of voters really do not want it to win."

Flat out admitting their motivation for rule changes is specifically to ensure their side wins.

SphericalTime: The proposed solution that I heard from Democrats was instant runoff voting.  The American Thinker proposal is open primaries, and I'm not entirely sure what the effect that would have.


My guess is they're hoping for a low turnout in the primary so that a small but motivated group of Tea Party voters could beat both Democrat and Republican candidates, and  if the TP candidate doesn't win the primary with 50%+ they're hoping the mainstream GOP voters will support the TP candidate over whoever the democrats put up for election in the runoff.

I think they're wrong though - the last couple of elections have shown the Tea Party has a hard time winning congressional elections in states that are remotely Purple.
 
2014-08-25 12:53:28 PM  

SphericalTime: ArkAngel: ragekage: lolz.

"In 2008, Mark Begich won in Alaska with 47.8% of the vote, while Republican Ted Stevens earned 46.6% and Bob Bird of the Alaska Independence Party, endorsed by Ron Paul, won 4.2%."

Hmmmm, I wonder how they felt about that sort-of thing in the 2000 Presidential election?

This for both sides. Democrats biatched up a storm at Ralph Nader

The proposed solution that I heard from Democrats was instant runoff voting.  The American Thinker proposal is open primaries, and I'm not entirely sure what the effect that would have.


The winner is the person who gets the most votes.

What effect? Democracy.
 
2014-08-25 12:54:30 PM  
Leftist Democrats?  Let the LOLs roll.
 
2014-08-25 12:55:01 PM  
That was the stupidest bit of intellectual dishonesty I've read all day. It was like watching a certain thin cranium person discuss the law..
 
2014-08-25 12:57:04 PM  

SphericalTime: ArkAngel: ragekage: lolz.

"In 2008, Mark Begich won in Alaska with 47.8% of the vote, while Republican Ted Stevens earned 46.6% and Bob Bird of the Alaska Independence Party, endorsed by Ron Paul, won 4.2%."

Hmmmm, I wonder how they felt about that sort-of thing in the 2000 Presidential election?

This for both sides. Democrats biatched up a storm at Ralph Nader

The proposed solution that I heard from Democrats was instant runoff voting.  The American Thinker proposal is open primaries, and I'm not entirely sure what the effect that would have.


"Open Primaries" would produce the effect of Tea Partiers throwing a tantrum and claiming sabotage by Democratic voters should a non-Tea Party Republican win a primary election.
 
2014-08-25 01:00:20 PM  

Dimensio: SphericalTime: ArkAngel: ragekage: lolz.

"In 2008, Mark Begich won in Alaska with 47.8% of the vote, while Republican Ted Stevens earned 46.6% and Bob Bird of the Alaska Independence Party, endorsed by Ron Paul, won 4.2%."

Hmmmm, I wonder how they felt about that sort-of thing in the 2000 Presidential election?

This for both sides. Democrats biatched up a storm at Ralph Nader

The proposed solution that I heard from Democrats was instant runoff voting.  The American Thinker proposal is open primaries, and I'm not entirely sure what the effect that would have.

"Open Primaries" would produce the effect of Tea Partiers throwing a tantrum and claiming sabotage by Democratic voters should a non-Tea Party Republican win a primary election.


I posted something on Facebook this morning about Scott DesJarlais, he of the "I screwed my patients and made my wife and my mistress have abortions" controversy, finally winning his primary in Tennessee. They don't restrict who votes a party's ballot based on affiliation in Tennessee. Within five minutes I already had three people saying that Democrats crossed over to vote for him because he would make the GOP worse.
 
2014-08-25 01:00:36 PM  
American Stinker trifecta in play!
 
2014-08-25 01:01:47 PM  

Target Builder: SphericalTime: The proposed solution that I heard from Democrats was instant runoff voting. The American Thinker proposal is open primaries, and I'm not entirely sure what the effect that would have.

My guess is they're hoping for a low turnout in the primary so that a small but motivated group of Tea Party voters could beat both Democrat and Republican candidates, and if the TP candidate doesn't win the primary with 50%+ they're hoping the mainstream GOP voters will support the TP candidate over whoever the democrats put up for election in the runoff.

I think they're wrong though - the last couple of elections have shown the Tea Party has a hard time winning congressional elections in states that are remotely Purple.


If this is what they're hoping, the Louisiana jungle primary system is a pretty piss-poor way to go about it since the primary happens on Election Day in November and the runoff happens in December. There's virtually no chance turnout in Louisiana will be low for the primary.
 
2014-08-25 01:06:34 PM  
Oh, and for the record, my preference is voting using the Schulze method. You rank the candidates in order of preference, can specify the same preference for candidates, and can leave some candidates unranked as a default last preference. The winner is the candidate preferred by the most voters. There are also variants of this method for electing multiple candidates and for use in proportional representation situations.
 
2014-08-25 01:10:39 PM  

Elfich: mrshowrules: I support the idea of a multi-vote system.  Simply vote for as many people as you like on the ballot.  You add up all the votes and the person with the most votes win.   If you really hate one party/candidate because of a particular issue, you could only vote for all/many of the other candidates on the ballot.  First, it would help you guys move away from the two party oligarchy.  Second, you would end up with leaders that more people liked and who were more moderate and less divisive.

I like the priority voting system. Given 5 candidates (more then that gets hard to handle) you rank order them by choice. The top candidate gets 5 points, the second 4 points and so on. You have to decide sort the five candidates and cannot leave any unchosen.

In cases where more than five candidates want to run, open primary 60 days ahead of time and the top five move on to the election.


No. You should not have to vote for anyone. You should be allowed to abstain from voting for your candidate if you want. You want to give 1st and 2nd place, but not rank the others, that should be acceptable.
 
2014-08-25 01:11:39 PM  
Wasn't Louisiana recently found to be even more corrupt than Pennsylvania?  In that light, it makes sense the American Thinker would want to adopt their systems of government.
 
2014-08-25 01:13:27 PM  

timujin: Leftist Democrats?  Let the LOLs roll.


This guy says Leftist, like its a Tourette tick.
 
2014-08-25 01:15:31 PM  

kidgenius: Elfich: mrshowrules: I support the idea of a multi-vote system.  Simply vote for as many people as you like on the ballot.  You add up all the votes and the person with the most votes win.   If you really hate one party/candidate because of a particular issue, you could only vote for all/many of the other candidates on the ballot.  First, it would help you guys move away from the two party oligarchy.  Second, you would end up with leaders that more people liked and who were more moderate and less divisive.

I like the priority voting system. Given 5 candidates (more then that gets hard to handle) you rank order them by choice. The top candidate gets 5 points, the second 4 points and so on. You have to decide sort the five candidates and cannot leave any unchosen.

In cases where more than five candidates want to run, open primary 60 days ahead of time and the top five move on to the election.

No. You should not have to vote for anyone. You should be allowed to abstain from voting for your candidate if you want. You want to give 1st and 2nd place, but not rank the others, that should be acceptable.


See the Schulze method I pointed out before. If you don't include a candidate or a group of candidates in your preference ranking, you in essence give them the lowest preference possible.
 
2014-08-25 01:15:40 PM  
old news is old. US politics has been one big game of calvinball for centuries.
 
2014-08-25 01:15:41 PM  
Open primaries are a bad thing now, GOP?

Remember when professional lipid Rush Limbaugh officially made farking with the primaries a thing in 2008?

// who am I kidding, of course you don't
 
2014-08-25 01:19:12 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Open primaries are a bad thing now, GOP?

Remember when professional lipid Rush Limbaugh officially made farking with the primaries a thing in 2008?

// who am I kidding, of course you don't


archive.rushimg.com

Pepperidge Farm remembers.
 
2014-08-25 01:22:47 PM  

MindStalker: timujin: Leftist Democrats?  Let the LOLs roll.

This guy says Leftist, like its a Tourette tick.


Not just regular Democrats... Leftist Democrats!
 
2014-08-25 01:23:25 PM  

kidgenius: Elfich: mrshowrules: I support the idea of a multi-vote system.  Simply vote for as many people as you like on the ballot.  You add up all the votes and the person with the most votes win.   If you really hate one party/candidate because of a particular issue, you could only vote for all/many of the other candidates on the ballot.  First, it would help you guys move away from the two party oligarchy.  Second, you would end up with leaders that more people liked and who were more moderate and less divisive.

I like the priority voting system. Given 5 candidates (more then that gets hard to handle) you rank order them by choice. The top candidate gets 5 points, the second 4 points and so on. You have to decide sort the five candidates and cannot leave any unchosen.

In cases where more than five candidates want to run, open primary 60 days ahead of time and the top five move on to the election.

No. You should not have to vote for anyone. You should be allowed to abstain from voting for your candidate if you want. You want to give 1st and 2nd place, but not rank the others, that should be acceptable.


That ruins the idea if priority voting.
 
2014-08-25 01:26:28 PM  

SphericalTime: ManateeGag: it's the Republican way

This.  I'm kinda surprised that some GOP congressman hasn't yet put forth an amendment to the constitution that counts the votes of Democrats as three fifths of a REAL AMERICAN vote.


Or at least restores the existing lines that do so.
 
2014-08-25 01:27:07 PM  

Dimensio: SphericalTime: ArkAngel: ragekage: lolz.

"In 2008, Mark Begich won in Alaska with 47.8% of the vote, while Republican Ted Stevens earned 46.6% and Bob Bird of the Alaska Independence Party, endorsed by Ron Paul, won 4.2%."

Hmmmm, I wonder how they felt about that sort-of thing in the 2000 Presidential election?

This for both sides. Democrats biatched up a storm at Ralph Nader

The proposed solution that I heard from Democrats was instant runoff voting.  The American Thinker proposal is open primaries, and I'm not entirely sure what the effect that would have.

"Open Primaries" would produce the effect of Tea Partiers throwing a tantrum and claiming sabotage by Democratic voters should a non-Tea Party Republican win a primary election.


The fact that this has already happened this year will not deter them from calling you a lying fascist who doesn't understand the will of the people.
 
2014-08-25 01:31:09 PM  
namatad:

/why dont we all vote by mail? for all elections?
/98% cheaper. no need for VOTER ID. less chance of tampering with votes. paper trail for recounts. no chance for locals to fark with elections as all votes are counted by an independent agency in a central location.
/of course this will never happen. or not any day soon.


The anonymity of the voting booth is an essential asset of the process. Make it just 'vote by mail' and there's no way you can protect the voters from undue pressure. You'll have controlling patriarchs 'checking' which candidate their spouse / children are voting for, or just completing the form on their behalf.
 
2014-08-25 01:31:45 PM  

Snarfangel: mrshowrules: I support the idea of a multi-vote system.  Simply vote for as many people as you like on the ballot.  You add up all the votes and the person with the most votes win.   If you really hate one party/candidate because of a particular issue, you could only vote for all/many of the other candidates on the ballot.  First, it would help you guys move away from the two party oligarchy.  Second, you would end up with leaders that more people liked and who were more moderate and less divisive.

Approval voting is a good system, and if anything, even easier than our current plurality voting (and no spoiled ballots!).


Well, there is still the issue of mechanical error; if you're dealing with a non-digital machine that punches holes in the ballot we saw issues in 2000 where either hitting a button too firmly placed pressure on nearby holes that could potentially go through and if the area behind the chad gets jammed up behind a commonly pressed button that could cause a jam where it fails to go through the hole leaving that candidate unmarked.

In the grand scheme of things it should all hopefully even out, but there is a hell of a lot of human error factors that could still cause headaches.
 
2014-08-25 01:38:04 PM  
An even bigger problem is people voting for the name that comes first on the ballot.
 
2014-08-25 01:40:36 PM  

Dimensio: "Open Primaries" would produce the effect of Tea Partiers throwing a tantrum and claiming sabotage by Democratic voters should a non-Tea Party Republican win a primary election.


We got rid of all the biatching here in California by having ONE primary, with the top two candidates (irrespective of party) advancing to the general, provided no one wins 50%+1 vote in said primary. If that happens that candidate is the *-elect.

Of course we also have universal vote-by-mail, so we're bad because reasons.
 
2014-08-25 01:41:48 PM  

Elfich: mrshowrules: I support the idea of a multi-vote system.  Simply vote for as many people as you like on the ballot.  You add up all the votes and the person with the most votes win.   If you really hate one party/candidate because of a particular issue, you could only vote for all/many of the other candidates on the ballot.  First, it would help you guys move away from the two party oligarchy.  Second, you would end up with leaders that more people liked and who were more moderate and less divisive.

I like the priority voting system. Given 5 candidates (more then that gets hard to handle) you rank order them by choice. The top candidate gets 5 points, the second 4 points and so on. You have to decide sort the five candidates and cannot leave any unchosen.

In cases where more than five candidates want to run, open primary 60 days ahead of time and the top five move on to the election.


It is a variation on my approach.  More complex and might be more problematic for spoiled ballots.  My system would be a point for every person with a mark next to their name.  You can cross as many boxes as you want without spoiling your ballot.
 
2014-08-25 01:41:54 PM  

smitty04: An even bigger problem is people voting for the name that comes first on the ballot.


So print ballots with randomized orderings of the candidates.
 
2014-08-25 01:42:11 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-08-25 01:42:58 PM  
If we selected our leaders based on who could lift the largest pig, the Teatards would still complain that said pig lifter is unfairly biased against non-pig-hoisting Americans.
 
2014-08-25 01:45:40 PM  

Serious Black: smitty04: An even bigger problem is people voting for the name that comes first on the ballot.

So print ballots with randomized orderings of the candidates.


Yeah, that's what we do here in Cali. Damn, Jerry Brown was about 17th out of 20+, but since I can read I found his name and voted for him. And to the surprise of absolutely no one in Cali Jerry and the best known Republican went 1-2, and will face off in November. It seems our voters could in fact filter out the nuts, fruits and flakes.
 
2014-08-25 01:46:08 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: If we selected our leaders based on who could lift the largest pig, the Teatards would still complain that said pig lifter is unfairly biased against non-pig-hoisting Americans.


"This election was stolen because John McCain can't lift his arms over his head because he's a wounded veteran!"

The rebuttal, of course, would be: "So? Barack Obama couldn't even touch the pig because he's Muslim."
 
Displayed 50 of 104 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report