Quote from: HinterWeltGet with the program. The Jew is using the Black Man as muscle. Well, what you gonna do about it "Whitey"?!?!

Bill

Ha ha. Awesome!

Illinois Nazis.

I hate Illinois Nazis.

:haw:

Quote from: John MorrowYes, and once you have rulers who are elected with substantially less than 50% of the vote, it becomes very difficult to talk about them in terms of "the will of the people" or about how their policies reflect "the majority of the people" and it's why many people who analyze voting schemes advocate either run-off elections between the top-two candidates when none gets over 50% or some other scheme to create some sort of mandate.

I agree that instant run-off voting is a good idea to come closer to a mandate.  

You're speaking only about rulers with less than 50% of the votes cast, however, and I don't think the problem is limited to that.  For example, Iran has elections but the candidates must be approved by religious authority, so the people's choice are quite restricted.  Other party systems can also restrict people's choice, such that many who vote only consider them the lesser of evils.  Many countries only present limited options, and many people do not vote at all.  The last parliamentary elections in Switzerland, for example, had under 40% turnout.

A true mandate is rare, in my opinion.  Even if a party is elected with a true majority of the population, that doesn't mean their subsequent actions necessarily reflect the will of the people -- nor should it necessarily, under the original philosophy of republics.

Quote from: jhkimI agree that instant run-off voting is a good idea to come closer to a mandate.

It at least helps make sure that everyone's third or fourth choice doesn't wind up in charge.  For example, the reason why Ortega won in Nicaragua was that the right was split pretty evenly between two candidates, which gave Ortega the opportunity to win a plurality of votes from everyone else.  

Weighted voting is another option, but probably too complicated to be practical.

Quote from: jhkimYou're speaking only about rulers with less than 50% of the votes cast, however, and I don't think the problem is limited to that.  For example, Iran has elections but the candidates must be approved by religious authority, so the people's choice are quite restricted.  Other party systems can also restrict people's choice, such that many who vote only consider them the lesser of evils.  Many countries only present limited options, and many people do not vote at all.  The last parliamentary elections in Switzerland, for example, had under 40% turnout.

Of those concerns, I'm more concerned with limited choices, which the two-party system in the United States also creates to a degree, and the whole idea of the two parties bartering for "safe" congressional districts so that congressional elections won't be competitive is pretty obscene.  

I'm less concerned with low voter turnout because that suggests indifference to who wins.  I don't want to force people into a voting booth that are going to pull a random lever because they have to, though an "I don't care" button might mitigate that concern.

Quote from: jhkimA true mandate is rare, in my opinion.  Even if a party is elected with a true majority of the population, that doesn't mean their subsequent actions necessarily reflect the will of the people -- nor should it necessarily, under the original philosophy of republics.

Agreed.  But I think that once you start getting into the 40% range, the person does not have a mandate for the sorts of major changes that Allende was attempting to implement in Chile when he was deposed.  From what I understand, Allende got legislative support in exchange for a pledge that he'd act constitutionally and there were complaints that he was not.

Quote from: John MorrowOf those concerns, I'm more concerned with limited choices, which the two-party system in the United States also creates to a degree, and the whole idea of the two parties bartering for "safe" congressional districts so that congressional elections won't be competitive is pretty obscene.  

I'm less concerned with low voter turnout because that suggests indifference to who wins.  I don't want to force people into a voting booth that are going to pull a random lever because they have to, though an "I don't care" button might mitigate that concern.

Well, it's possible that those people simply wouldn't care regardless of what the system was.  It's also possible that people feel either that none of the choices offered are what they really want -- or perhaps that that their vote doesn't make a difference due to the two-party system, the bartering of districts, and/or the electoral college.

Quote from: jhkimWell, it's possible that those people simply wouldn't care regardless of what the system was.  It's also possible that people feel either that none of the choices offered are what they really want -- or perhaps that that their vote doesn't make a difference due to the two-party system, the bartering of districts, and/or the electoral college.

Yes, but dealing with that problem by legally mandating voting sweeps both groups into the voting booth.