Sentences with phrase «other voting systems»

However, other voting systems, notably the part - list system, can also create politicians who are relatively immune from electoral pressure.

Through YouGov, we modelled the results under three other voting systems, asking 13,000 voters how they'd vote using the Alternative Vote, the Welsh Assembly / Scottish Parliament's Additional Member System or Northern Ireland's Single Transferable Vote system.

Yet there are plenty of other voting systems, like the Single Transferrable Vote method used to elect moderators on Stack Exchange sites, where voters can honestly indicate their top preference and have an incentive to do so, without the disincentive that this might help their least favored candidate win.

There are of course lots of other voting systems than first - past - the - post which promise more democratic election results, like approval voting, alternative vote and their many variants.

By using this method, OAD eliminates a dilution of results experienced in other voting systems that are based on surveys, while at the same time offering everyone an opportunity to participate.

First, any other voting system risks giving a leg - up to extremist parties like the BNP.

Not exact matches

McCain joined two other Republican senators, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who voted against the bill and quashed Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's plan to upend the US healthcare system after 20 hours of debate.

Originally designing electronic voting systems, the company soon moved on to designing and manufacturing scoreboards and other equipment for arenas.

While it's highly unlikely that any Kobo users will end up on a Canadian watchlist, the point remains: ship your data abroad, and it falls into other jurisdictions and other legal systems that you don't necessarily vote for or understand.

Michigan does not have an audit system, but it's important to note that the state's residents vote on optical scan machines, a type of machine that's considered less vulnerable to hacking than the paperless, touchscreen machines used in some other states.

We voted against the other two proposals because both would erode the funded component of Chile's retirement system.

As long as stock exchanges allow dual shareholder classes, Google, Facebook and other Internet titans will probably never adopt a one - share, one - vote system.

It's that belief system that causes people to vote and protest against others that don't believe as they do.

America could be a true multi-party system as in Europe, but the existing parties have been quite effective at duping people into voting for them so that the other side wouldn't win.

If you are 55 or under and hope to enjoy some of those benefits you have been paying into from your paychecks for the last 30 years, of which the Government has borrowed 5 trillion dollars for other spending such as defense and tax breaks for the rich, which is why the current social security system is in jeopardy, then you will be voting for Obama.

The reality is 65 million people voted for Trump... and while a lot of those votes came from people who were legitimately frustrated with both political parties and wanted someone to shake up the system, and a lot of votes cam from traditional doctrinaire Republican voters who held their nose and voted for the guy because they wanted a tax cut, and other voters were pseudo-moralistic Evangelical hypocrites who wanted to reward McConnell for STEALING Merrick Garland's Supreme Court seat, there were a whole lot of Trump voters — including a lot of voters from Pennsylvania's «T» — who voted for Trump because they are racist, white supremicist xenophobes who saw in Trump someone who spoke their language and would «make america great again» (read «make america WHITE again»).

Last year in the Tap City an outfielder who spent nine years in the farm systems of three other teams wound up second in the National League Rookie of the Year vote (Scott Podsednik); a 29 - year - old reliever released by the Rangers in March 2003 became a lights - out closer (Danny Kolb); and a journeyman discarded by Texas in April and then Toronto in July became one of the league's most effective starters over the final two months (Doug Davis).

The main reasons it wasn't adopted more widely yet is because it isn't as intuitive to understand as most other systems, counting the votes takes longer than with single - vote systems and of course because of people who reject it for purely political reasons.

In real - world elections, there are some systems where is is much harder to vote tactically than others - you never have perfect information on everyone else's vote, so the more information that you need to be able to vote tactically, the less likely people are to do so.

Even so, some systems (such as winner - take - all) are more heavily impacted by tactical voting than others (such as instant - runoff).

The instant runoff system is considered a very good voting system when choosing between multiple options because it avoids the spoiler effect (e.g. two similar options stealing each other votes so a 3rd candidate who is actually less popular than them wins), doesn't discourage votes for options perceived as underdogs and leads to a compromise most people can agree to.

In the legislative systems I know individual politicians always have a single vote, although in some cases they may influence other members votes behind the scenes.

Under the current system, such candidates don't even make it to the general election, even though a majority who will vote in the election would prefer them to one or the other candidate.

If we are going to have a referendum on voting reform - bearing in mind other questions, such as Scottish independence, are far more pressing - then let's have one on a more credible system.

There is no point having PR for both the Commons and Lords — every voting system has some flaw or other, so it's better to have different means of election to both chambers if both are elected, with the purpose of each correcting the other's flaws.

While some of the other answers and comments have some good points about people supporting meritocracy and similar ideas, I believe that the most important answer has less to do with individual voter's ideologies, and more to do with the voting system.

I assume that under the existing system, the focus is on swing states, which contain moderate voters, which means convincing moderate supporters of one candidate to vote for the other candidate instead, or convincing moderate supporters of one candidate to get out and vote for them, or convincing moderate supporters of the opposing candidate to stay at home on election day.

Similarly to a trusted justice system, other requirements that are commonly present in «one person, one vote» systems are based around trusted institutions, for example excluding mentally unstable citizens from voting would require that the population generally and overwhelmingly trust the society's health system.

Your question also touches upon another problem: The fact that first - past - the - post and other systems based on gaining a plurality of the vote in single - seat constituencies distort the vote and can be used to durably keep minority parties out of the parliament and government politics.

Similarly, this is why some states implement a caucus system for their primary elections, while other states prefer a straight majority vote primary system instead.

You wouldn't claim people get more votes under other forms of runoff voting (two round system or exhaustive ballot for example).

My computation does not show what would have happened if we had another system of vote, there is no way to know (we can make some guesses, some slightly more educated than others, but that's all).

«What I'm saying here is pointing at a very, very irrational possible outcome of our potty electoral system, which is that a party that has spectacularly lost the election because fewer people are voting for it than any other party, could nonetheless according to constitutional tradition and convention still lay claim to providing the prime minister of the country.»

The other progressive parties know that an alliance is the only way to deliver a progressive government, short of a change to the voting system.

Note that the other main ranked voting system in use in international politics (the single transferable vote) collapses into IRV when you only have one winner.

Shadow Defence Secretary Clive Lewis said that under the first past the post voting system, Labour will struggle to form a government without the backing of other left - leaning parties.

Conservative MP Robin Walker is mistaken to think that voting systems other than first - past - the - post all give a leg - up to extremist parties (electoral system debate, TP, Nov).

The governor also cited Russian attempts to hack other states» voting systems in 2016 as a reason to strengthen cyber security at polling places.

The final wording said that Labour would pilot secure systems for electronic voting and electoral registration on polling day, and consider piloting elections on days other than Thursday.

On enhancing democracy «The final wording said that Labour would pilot secure systems for electronic voting and electoral registration on polling day, and consider piloting elections on days other than Thursday».

STV is the system of choice of groups such as the Proportional Representation Society of Australia (which calls it quota - preferential proportional representation), [2] the Electoral Reform Society in the United Kingdom [3] and FairVote in the USA (which refers to both STV and instant - runoff voting as ranked - choice voting, [4] although there are other preferential voting methods that use ranked - choice ballots).

The system provides approximately proportional representation, enables votes to be cast for individual candidates rather than for parties, and — compared to first - past - the - post voting — reduces «wasted» votes (votes on sure losers or sure winners) by transferring them to other candidates.

There is no vote before all this on the choice of Prime Minister - unlike many in many other parliamentary systems.

I've seen in various places that the Gibbard — Satterthwaite theorem still applies to these other systems, and therefore they are also inescapably subject to tactical voting, but I've also seen advocates say that G — S theorem likewise only applies to ranked systems, and that score voting meets all the criteria when there are ≤ 3 candidates.

In other words, applied to voting systems, it means that whatever your preferences are, you can choose the ballot that best defends your opinion, without knowing what other voters will do.

Here, I use the phrase eligible candidate to mean that the candidate is actually in the image of the voting system (if three candidates exist but you accept that one of them can not be elected in any situation, then you can consider the simple majority rule on the other two candidates, which is neither dictatorial nor manipulable).

I'm convinced K & L Gates, the Barclay's and the others don't believe in the one man one vote system of government, BUT I DO and am voting for Kathleen Rice for AG & Luke Martland SD - 46!

Hacking and releasing information (illegal), setting up real - ish looking news sites with phony stories that opportunistic partisans would link to as proof that their side was pure and the other evil, etc, and even probes of state and municipal voting systems, which was especially worrysome.

In other words, he simply failed to take on board the point that the kind of voting system affects the kind of policies we get in a systematic way.

Others say that the entire system of permanent membership is inherently flawed and it should be switched to a majority vote system like you mentioned.