The Presidents: 1836-1936 - An Interactive US AAR

[Revan529]

Thank you for the clarification of the proxy vote; I am still unsure if I will support it, at least entirely, but if we place strong sentences on voter fraud, I'd probably be appeased.

((Either theory or in-thread would be good))

 

[Mikeboy]

Perhaps there could be number of seats reserved for independents, say 15%, and the independents who get the highest number of votes fill those seats?

((Heh, all this talk of elections reminds me of working at the Electoral Commission, oddly enough I actually did a briefing on the SV for the Chief Executive.. In the UK at least it's actually surprisingly easy to commit voter fraud for normal voting as you merely need to know their name and polling station and turn up before they do (and if you don't you cast a tendered vote), whereas fraud is a bit harder for postal and hardest for proxy. Anyways as for how it would work in-thread perhaps BBB could povide a ballot paper and then we mark it.

So BBB would provide
John Smith []
Jane Smith []
Richard Smith []

And we'd fill it

John Smith [1]
Jane Smith []
Richard Smith [2]

Indicating our first preference for John and second for Richard.))

 

[Revan529]

I would not want a quota to be in place; it seems naturally unfair to the major parties, and an unnecessary boost to what would otherwise be minor parties (especially if it was a one time major push for say, a pro-segregation party). I would say that having a pure proportional system would be fairer and more effective.

 

[BigBadBob]

Actually, the easiest would be ballot that goes:

First Pref: Bob Smith
Second Pref: Rob Smith

 

[Mikeboy]

((That too'd work fine.))

 

[theAhawk]

((Either theory or in-thread would be good))

((Not sure if this is what you wanted, but meh...))

Suppose we have four candidates in an election; red, blue, green and orange.

Each voter gets a first preference vote and a second preference vote.

The first 5 votes are as follows: (1st/2nd)

Red/Green
Red/Blue
Orange/-
Blue/Green
Red/Blue

Red would win in this instance as he has 3 1st preference votes out of the 5 available (ie a majority)

The next two votes are as follows:

Blue/Green
Green/Blue

No candidate has a majority of first preferences, the leader being Red with 3 out of the 7 1st preference votes cast. Blue is the runner up with 2 1st preferences. The other candidates, Green and Orange, with only 1 first preference each are therefore discounted.
The second preference votes are added to the first preference votes for the two remaining candidates.
Red now has three votes in total (3 1st + 0 2nd)
Blue now has five votes in total (2 1st + 3 2nd)
Blue would win in this instance with the most votes in total.

((I'm not too sure that has actually clarified anything...))

 

[BigBadBob]

It has clarified that, if we move to preference, I'll be even more inclined to leave vote counting to you guys, and will never, ever entertain the idea of a four-way race because of the sheer confusion preference creates in a three-way race alone.

 

[theAhawk]

If it was well organised and displayed it shouldn't be confusing, it's just that my scenario was badly displayed...

 

[BigBadBob]

If it was well organised and displayed it shouldn't be confusing, it's just that my scenario was badly displayed...

Trust me when I say that FPTP is already pretty confusing with people forgetting to bold their votes, bolding their urgings to vote for one of the candidates, and votes getting lost among the walls of text posted by candidates. I shudder to think of what Preference will be like to handle. I shudder.

PS. It seems I've forgotten to make it official.

The Polls are Closed.

Joseph P. Jarvis will continue his duties as President of the United States.

 

[BigBadBob]

Actually, now that I think of it, the HRRA and PVRA would have to be proposed as Amendments to the Constitution, since the PVRA is changing (most probably) Article II, Section I, Clause III.

The HRRA on the other hand, would essentially obliterate Article I, Section II, Clauses III and IV. The HoR is supposed to have representatives for each state, while the HRRA is based on a national vote, which makes the HRRA no longer part of a Congress that represents the states in Washington, but a fourth branch of the Federal Government essentially representing the political parties of the nation.

 

[theAhawk]

What effect would that have?

 

[BigBadBob]

What effect would that have?

If they were proposed as an Amendment, they would have to pass by at least a 2/3rds majority in Congress, and then be ratified by the states, which can take years and years. I think the latest amendment to the constitution was something about payrolls, was proposed in 1789 and didn't get ratified by the necessary 3/4ths of states (and thus enacted) until 1992. Especially since HRRA would be seen by the states as removing the HoR from representing them, ratification would be a bitch.

If however, you propose them outside of the amendment system, the first supreme court that's half-awake will likely put them down, at least in the case of HRRA.

PS. In the PVRA, do you mean that the electoral college will move to a preference system based on the votes in their states, or the electoral college will be abolished and every single voter will place a first and second preference on the ballot? Because you say that the president will no longer be decided by the electoral college, but by preference, and then you talk about electors.

 

[theAhawk]

Does this mean that in-story you would block the two voting reforms, via the supreme court, if they weren't amendments? And does this mean that the HoR bill will be blocked regardless? Or are you planning some way of simulating the states opinions? Or will it be, if it can get 2/3rds it will be treated as if it is ratified?

The idea was that every voter would get a first and second preference and that the electoral college would be abandoned as a means of electing the president; my wording may have been confusing, as I assumed that voter and elector meant the same thing, which they obviously don't!

 

[BigBadBob]

Does this mean that in-story you would block the two voting reforms, via the supreme court, if they weren't amendments? And does this mean that the HoR bill will be blocked regardless? Or are you planning some way of simulating the states opinions? Or will it be, if it can get 2/3rds it will be treated as if it is ratified?

The idea was that every voter would get a first and second preference and that the electoral college would be abandoned as a means of electing the president; my wording may have been confusing, as I assumed that voter and elector meant the same thing, which they obviously don't!

Unless they were proposed as amendments, I would have to strike them down in-story as unconstitutional if there was so much as one dissenting vote, which there will be.

If I were to try to simulate the states' opinions after a 2/3rds majority, they'd never be ratified by the necessary 38 states, as the little states would oppose the PVRA because it would make their votes less important in presidential elections, and all the states would oppose the HRRA for the aforementioned reasons. The PVRA might go through with a simulation if you manage to get Jarvis behind it enough to campaign for it in the states least likely to ratify it. HRRA though, if we continue to role-play as though the states have a say in the federal government, would crash and burn the moment it had to be ratified.

Hmmm... The FEC would then have to be expanded like mad if the PVRA went through. The states would probably push the responsibility for the presidential election completely onto the federal government, and stop counting the votes, if their being treated as individual parts of a whole when it comes to the presidential election was ended. Really, the main problem is that we didn't do this in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, since states' rights is no longer a dirty word 60 years later.

 

[theAhawk]

Unless they were proposed as amendments, I would have to strike them down in-story as unconstitutional if there was so much as one dissenting vote, which there will be.

OK, I've changed them to amendments.

If I were to try to simulate the states' opinions after a 2/3rds majority, they'd never be ratified by the necessary 38 states, as the little states would oppose the PVRA because it would make their votes less important in presidential elections, and all the states would oppose the HRRA for the aforementioned reasons.

If I changed the HoR act to include quotas for the list members to come proportionally from all the states would that go some way to aleviate the problem and make it more likely to succeed, eg there must be one candidate from each state in the first 50 on the list and after that candidates must be added in proportion to the size of the state (ie similar to the current system but on a party level instead of a seats level)? (Or alternatively, is there a way of forcing statewide referendums instead of the legislatures choosing?)

The PVRA might go through with a simulation if you manage to get Jarvis behind it enough to campaign for it in the states least likely to ratify it.

Secondly, President Jarvis, can I count on your support for the Presidential Voting Reform bill?

 

[BigBadBob]

If I changed the HoR act to include quotas for the list members to come proportionally from all the states would that go some way to aleviate the problem and make it more likely to succeed, eg there must be one candidate from each state in the first 50 on the list and after that candidates must be added in proportion to the size of the state (ie similar to the current system but on a party level instead of a seats level)? (Or alternatively, is there a way of forcing statewide referendums instead of the legislatures choosing?)

The problem with this proposal is that it still takes the HoR from being part of the congress, which represents the states, and makes it the representative of the parties.

Your best bet would probably be using the original bill, but having the reform be made on a state level; so parties offer a list of candidates from the state in question in each state, and then there's a statewide vote. Each state would of course have its own vote threshold for when a party gains the right to seats due to the fact that states have a different amount of representatives. Although I still think some way to allow candidates without a party to be elected should be created.

 

[theAhawk]

The problem with this proposal is that it still takes the HoR from being part of the congress, which represents the states, and makes it the representative of the parties.

Your best bet would probably be using the original bill, but having the reform be made on a state level; so parties offer a list of candidates from the state in question in each state, and then there's a statewide vote. Each state would of course have its own vote threshold for when a party gains the right to seats due to the fact that states have a different amount of representatives. Although I still think some way to allow candidates without a party to be elected should be created.

I am reluctant to do so, based on the fact that it would stop it being proportional, but I agree that it wouldn't get passed without removing the opposition from that states, so I shall rewrite it to take this into account.

I also have reservations regarding the creation of an independent system, not least as it would be difficult from preventing it from being run by the parties.

PS I have now changed the bill, including the distribution to the states in HoR and a clarification of how these reforms would alter the Senate, but not independent seats, which I am still to be convinced about.

 

[etranger01]

(Do we still have senators appointed by state governors or are they appointed by popular vote now?)

Independent candidates must be supported by the CVR Amendment. There are valid and useful opinions to be found outside established political parties, and this proposed constitutional amendment would prevent them from ever having a voice in American politics. I also oppose the first-preference party automatically gaining both of the state's Senate seats. We should not be enshrining political parties in our Constitution when the Founding Fathers were so adamantly against them, and for good reason. The focus should be on individual candidates, not their political affiliation.

I will support the Presidential Reform amendment and the other two bills, provided that Article I of the Ease of Voting Act is struck from the legislation to prevent abuse.

 

[BigBadBob]

(Do we still have senators appointed by state governors or are they appointed by popular vote now?)

I've operated on the assumption that TTL senators were always elected by popular vote.

 

[Seek75]

((I don't think we ever had the amendment that made senators directly elected, so I'd assume they're still appointed.

EDIT: Well jeez BBB, way to break all the rules ))