You know, I was thinking just the other day: yes, we are in a serious economic downturn, but what we really need is to spend money on a new state board regulating interior design. Thanks, Senator Franklin and colleagues, you answered my prayers!
On HB 1624, I am all for the attempt -- the only unsolvable problems with Internet voting are present in any kind of overseas voting -- but I doubt it will work out well, because, well, these things rarely do. Color me hopeful but pessimistic.
But on SB 5536, well, I'll just reiterate that if you are incapable of voting for the one person you think is best for a position, then I don't care about any problems you have. This proposal would allow weak-willed people to hedge their bets by picking multiple candidates for a particular office, ranked in order of personal preference, so they don't have to worry their pretty little heads about whether they vote for whom they like the best, or whom they think has the best chance of winning.
House Bill 1604 (changing restrictions on firearm noise suppressors)
Introduced by Rep. Cary Condotta, (R-Wenatchee) (R) on January 26, 2009, allows a firearm noise suppressor if it is legally registered and possessed in accordance with federal law.
Senate Bill 5514 (Concerning the practice of interior design)
Introduced by Sen. Rosa Franklin, (D-Tacoma) (D) on January 26, 2009, creates a state board for registered interior designers and sets forth registration procedures and standards of professional practice for registered interior designers.
House Bill 1617 (reducing the regulatory burden for Washington businesses)
Introduced by Rep. Norma Smith, (R-Whidbey Island) (R) on January 26, 2009, revises rule-making requirements to assure that the legislature can carefully review rules that impose significant requirements on citizens before the rules take effect.
House Bill 1624 (Authorizing internet voting for military and overseas voters)
Introduced by Rep. Sherry Appleton, (D-Poulsbo) (D) on January 26, 2009, authorizes the secretary of state to approve a program that allows service and overseas voters to cast a ballot over the internet. The program must be secure, and must protect the secrecy of the ballot.
Senate Bill 5534 (Restoration of voting rights for convicted felons )
Introduced by Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles, (D-Seattle) (D) on January 26, 2009, restores the right to vote for a person convicted of a felony if the person is no longer under the authority of the department of corrections, or, in the case of federal convictions, if the person is no longer incarcerated.
Senate Bill 5536 (Using ranked choice voting in primary elections)
Introduced by Sen. Eric Oemig, (D-Kirkland) (D) on January 26, 2009, provides a process and describes procedures for ranked
choice voting, also known as instant runoff voting, in primary elections.
Senate Bill 5559 (Increasing hunting safety)
Introduced by Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles, (D-Seattle) (D) on January 26, 2009, seeks to increase hunting safety by requiring that a hunter under the age of 16 must be accompanied by a Washington licensed hunter who has held a hunting license for the prior three years and is over the age of 18 when hunting for wild birds and animals. The accompanying adult hunter must stay within a visual and hearing range.
It's all cosmic rays!
Cosmic rays reflect stratospheric weather
http://www.timesoftheinternet.com/41178.html
"British scientists say they've detected cosmic rays reaching an underground detector that reflect major weather events occurring in the Earth's stratosphere.
The researchers said the cosmic-rays detected half a mile underground in a unused U.S. iron mine can be used to determine major weather events occurring 20 miles above the Earth.
The researchers from the United Kingdom's National Center for Atmospheric Science and the Science and Technology Facilities Council said the study shows how the number of high-energy cosmic-rays reaching the underground detector closely matched temperature measurements in the stratosphere."
I know there are always something called STUPID bills, but this is getting ridiculous.
Posted by: swatter on January 27, 2009 03:11 PMI had no idea there was a federal law that even allowed these at all. Someone please fill me in on why this is even being proposed.
Posted by: Palouse on January 27, 2009 03:14 PMThere are folks who assured me that it's alright to use the suppressor on a gun range. But not elsewhere.
Got so that I tried to look up in the RCWs and Fed Regs and things were so confusing and contradictory that I decided it would be safer just to go without.
I'm positive someone is reading that has more knowledge and I'd be interested to know.
Posted by: Don Ward on January 27, 2009 03:45 PMRight, because it's so quiet otherwise at the gun range as a result of those new .30-06 Springfield noise suppressors. :)
Seriously, I fail to see why these are allowed to be sold or owned, by anyone. And I've been an NRA member.
Posted by: Palouse on January 27, 2009 04:20 PMSo the followup question is why you would oppose this legislation. In order to purchase a silencer you have to go through a federal background check, just like for a firearm. Therefore if you have one you are either a criminal (in which case you didn't care that they were illegal) or you are a law abiding citizen and there shouldn't be an issue with you having one.
Posted by: Calvin A on January 27, 2009 05:20 PMNice to see he now has a new pet project.
Of course, it still has nothing to do with any committee is serves on. I doubt it even reflects the will of his constituents. But, it strokes his ego, and after all, that is the whole point of being in politics, isn't it?
Posted by: janet s on January 27, 2009 05:28 PMSeriously, I fail to see why those are not allowed to be sold or owned or used, by any legal gun owner. Who cares if you use one or not?
your comment on SB5536 demonstrates your preference for insulting people over dealing with facts
On the contrary, it shows my preference for insulting people who ignore the facts. I note, for example, that you do not deny the facts as I described them.
Our current system of voting is the worst at reflecting the voters' wishes by any conceivable set of criteria.
This is where the obviously illogical nature of your argument comes out. Simply put: how do you know what the voters' wishes are? We only have one way to know what their wishes are: the election. And in that election, they said they preferred candidate A over candidate B. Who the hell are you to say they didn't, when THEY said they did?
See the brilliant recent book "Gaming the Vote" or any other analysis of voting theory if you care to educate yourself.
I understand the issue very well. I've researched it, I know it, and that is why you can't contradict any fact I've stated about it.
The problem is that YOU want to game the vote. In any system, people are allowed to game the vote, of course. But in IRV and the like, the system is DESIGNED AS A GAME.
It assumes that everyone is as weak-willed as you are, coweringly afraid to vote for the person you think is best for the job, and so you have to hedge your bets. It's, at best, insulting and contrary to the of American demcoratic principle of one man, one vote.
Making them a legal product to manufacture and own increases supply, and therefore much easier to obtain. I don't buy the excuse about using them at gun ranges. Ranges are extremely loud, and even if you use one, the guy next to you and next to him isn't, so you're not getting much more "protection" from hearing loss.
Posted by: Palouse on January 27, 2009 09:27 PMOf course. But what is "the election"? If "the election" means just asking for their favorite, candidate A can be elected even if more people prefer candidate B to A, if a third candidate takes votes away from B.
Under IRV, "the election" asks people more than their favorite candidate, in order to avoid this problem. The current system has far more opportunities for "gaming" than any other system. (The book "Gaming the Vote" takes its name from game theory, the mathematical study of group decisions like this. We are not talking about games in the negative way that you imply.)
I don't want to get into a debate with you here on IRV or any of the other voting systems. None is perfect, but any would be an improvement over the current system.
Posted by: Bruce on January 27, 2009 09:35 PMJust the opposite. Under the current system, voters must play that game -- e.g., in 2000, a Nader fan had to decide whether to vote for the person he wanted most or Gore, who had a chance of winning. Therefore, even though more people wanted Gore than Bush, Bush won. (OK, Gore still got more votes, but the electoral college interfered -- so much for your "one man, one vote" idea. But I digress.) I cite the 2000 election with trepidation since I know most people on this board are quite happy with how it turned out. But of course this problem can affect either party, and may soon cause Huff to win even if a majority of voters prefer Irons to Huff.
Posted by: Bruce on January 27, 2009 09:43 PMI don't believe silencers should be legal at all because their utility for legal gun owners doesn't outweigh having them easier to obtain for criminals.
Funny, that's the exact same logic used by people like Obama to justify banning ALL guns. I don't buy it.
But what is "the election"?
Asking people who they want to win the election. It's the only way to find out who they want to win the election, you know: by asking them precisely that question.
Under IRV, "the election" asks people more than their favorite candidate, in order to avoid this problem.
Sorry, but you forgot to describe any problem to be avoided. Wanna try again? This is the essential question-begging IRV proponents have never, to my knowledge, been able to get past. They cannot demonstrate that this is a bad thing, they merely boringly assert it. And I say they are wrong: the current system works perfectly. It is not a problem. People are free to do whatever they wish with their ONE VOTE (other than allow someone else to use it): they can cast it for any one person, or not cast it at all.
The current system has far more opportunities for "gaming" than any other system.
Only because in IRV etc. the gaming is built in to the system. This is not an improvement.
(The book "Gaming the Vote" takes its name from game theory, the mathematical study of group decisions like this. We are not talking about games in the negative way that you imply.)
I know all about game theory, and I used the term in the exact same way as they are using it.
any would be an improvement over the current system.
Incorrect.
Just the opposite.
Incorrect.
Under the current system, voters must play that game
Oh please. It is self-evident that no one MUST play that game, they only do if they WANT to (as opposed to IRV, where they are forced to). And there's no serious EVIDENCE that most people DO play such a game.
e.g., in 2000, a Nader fan had to decide whether to vote for the person he wanted most or Gore, who had a chance of winning.
Yep. And that's a good thing.
Therefore, even though more people wanted Gore than Bush ...
Only because of the electoral college. Let's say you are talking about Florida instead, where (Gore + Nader) > Bush. Fine. You ask most of those Nader people if they prefer Gore to Bush, and they say yes.
So what? How is it a bad thing that they picked Nader, and Bush won? What's WRONG with that? Nothing I can see. The Nader voters knew what they were doing, and used their votes as they saw fit. This is NOT A PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED.
Gore still got more votes, but the electoral college interfered -- so much for your "one man, one vote" idea.
Do you honestly believe this, or are you merely trolling? It's obviously false. There was no interference. The Electoral College is the PURPOSE of the in-state popular vote. And if we had no Electoral College, there is no way to know if Gore still would have gotten more votes nationwide, because the existence of the Electoral College affects how people vote.
And of course it's still one man, one vote. It's no different than how the Senate works. I vote for my Senators, who then vote for legislation. I vote for an Elector who then votes for President. The Electoral College is an embodiment of representative democracy just like our legislatures are.
I cite the 2000 election with trepidation since I know most people on this board are quite happy with how it turned out. But of course this problem can affect either party ...
Sure. If Kerry had won the popular vote in Ohio (and no, he didn't, RFK Jr. is full of crap), then Kerry would have won the election because of the Electoral College, despite Bush winning the "popular vote." And I would have supported that 100 percent. Just like I supported the legal outcome of the 2004 governor race. I even predicted, and agreed with, Judge Bridges' decision (most of it, including the most important part, to let the result stand).
That doesn't mean I agree that King County did nothing wrong, nor do I agree that Florida election officials did nothing wrong. But IRV won't fix any of THOSE problems ... it will only exacerbate them by making things more complicated (and if anything should be obvious it's that increased complication magnifies problems in close elections).
Actually I described the problem in comment #15:
If more people prefer candidate A to B, but B wins, that's not a problem?
Or put another way, if A would beat B in a 2-person race, but B would beat A if a minor 3rd candidate ran, that's not a problem?
If a voter has to decide whether to vote for the person they want most, or game the system and vote for the person they can tolerate who has a better chance of winning, that's not a problem?
If you think that's the way the system should work, then we just disagree.
Posted by: Bruce on January 27, 2009 10:43 PMActually I described the problem in comment #15
No, you didn't. I understand what you described, but my point is that you didn't show it to be a problem.
If more people prefer candidate A to B, but B wins, that's not a problem?
Of course it's not. If the people who so prefer candidate A to candidate B can't get together behind candidate A, then that is their choice. They are exercising their rights.
The extreme arrogance of IRV is that its proponents are telling people they are using their votes incorrectly, by NOT gaming the system. After all, if they all just voted for candidate A, then the IRV proponents wouldn't have a problem. They only think there's a problem because they think -- incorrectly -- that people are using their votes incorrectly.
Or put another way, if A would beat B in a 2-person race, but B would beat A if a minor 3rd candidate ran, that's not a problem?
Of course it's not. And this question exposes the arrogance for what it is: you don't want people "wasting" their votes by not voting for whom you think they should vote for: one of the candidates who has a chance to win. But to them, their vote is not wasted. That's the point.
If a voter has to decide whether to vote for the person they want most, or game the system and vote for the person they can tolerate who has a better chance of winning, that's not a problem?
Of course it's not. It's called being an adult and making choices.
Is the cost/benefit of the issue worth it when we're winning in the big picture with gun rights?
For my two cents, it is completely silly to be able to legally own a suppressor but not be allowed to use it. Do one or the other.
Posted by: Don Ward on January 27, 2009 11:25 PMOn the issue of IRV voting, the issue is this: If I believe candidate A best represents my political beliefs, but has no chance of winning, AND I believe that by voting for candidate A, I take away a vote from candidate B, with the result being that Candidate C, whom I detest, has a better chance of winning, my choice in the "election" you prefer is to vote A and get C, or vote B and not get C. In no circumstance will I get A. So voting for B is not "weak willed", or an incorrect choice, or any other insulting action you may call it. It is a logical choice in which I simply vote against someone rather than for someone (voting for the lesser of two evils). For this reason I prefer PVI voting, and I disagree entirely with your "reasons" for opposing it and for supporting the current system.
Posted by: srogers on January 28, 2009 07:23 AMThe difference is in utility. Is there really a compelling public interest in allowing widespread use of silencers? I don't think so. They are not necessary for self protection, but firearms can be.
I'm pro-gun rights, but also believe in reasonable limitations, and silencers are just not necessary. In a similar analogy, we don't need to let people own howitzers even though I'm sure you could find some legal recreational use for them.
Posted by: Palouse on January 28, 2009 07:50 AMParsing a commenter's statement into individual sentences (by definition, taking them out of context)
Incorrect.
and then slapping the writer for each sentence with an attack, often ad-hominem, or simply calling them names, or implying they are childish for writing it, or claiming they didn't, with a particular sentence, raise a fact counter to his original post, is a juvenile, misleading, and irritating method of argument.
Oh, so it's better if you attack me WITHOUT cutting up my post to do so? Talk about juvenile.
In fact, you're wrong about pretty much all of it. I only rarely make ad hominems or call names. Bruce is one of the few special cases, because he habitually lies about me.
As to the rest, there's nothing remotely juvenile or misleading about it. The entire context is here, and while everyone is fallible, it is at worst extremely rare that I take anything out of context (unless I do so intentionally and obviously to make a point).
Please stop.
Because you are "irritated"? No.
On the issue of IRV voting, the issue is this ...
I understand the issue. It boils down to YOU disrespecting how OTHER PEOPLE exercise THEIR right to vote.
my choice in the "election" you prefer is to vote A and get C, or vote B and not get C
I love how you imply that an election is not REALLY an election. How cute. And yes, you get to choose. Absolutely. Isn't that great?
In no circumstance will I get A.
Yep. That's how it works when not enough people want A to win!
So voting for B is not "weak willed" ...
I never said it was. I said it is weak-willed to want PROTECTION for voting for A. If you vote for A, you know what will happen, and you accept the consequences for it. And now you want the government to protect you from those consequences.
... or an incorrect choice
No, B is not an incorrect choice, *A* is. According to IRV, of course, not to me. IRV *assumes* it is an incorrect choice. You want IRV, because it will rig the system to make sure B wins. That necessarily implies that it is wrong in the current system to vote for A, because doing so hurts B's chances.
It is a logical choice in which I simply vote against someone rather than for someone (voting for the lesser of two evils).
Of course. You misunderstand what I wrote. I have been very clear though: however you choose to use your vote is your choice, and I have no problem with it. It's the people who HAVE a problem with their vote BECAUSE they only get one vote, that I have a problem with.
And, of course, you can do that now, under the current system. There's no need to get some other system to do that, unless you want everyone else to ALSO vote against someone rather than for someone. This is what I meant earlier by saying IRV has the gaming "built in" to the system. Right now you can choose to just pick who you like best, or you can try to game the system in various ways. Under IRV, everyone games the system the same way.
For this reason I prefer PVI voting ...
What is PVI? I only know of the Partisan Voting Index, which has nothing to do with a method of voting.
... and I disagree entirely with your "reasons" for opposing it and for supporting the current system.
I never opposed PVI. I opposed IRV, and any system that allows "hedging your bets" by casting "votes" for multiple candidates. Are you saying PVI is such a system?
No, I missed no point, in fact. I understand how it works quite well. And nothing you've said in any way harms any argument I've made against it. "Majority rule" is a euphemism for "diminishing the voice of people who vote for minority candidates." There's nothing magical about someone who represents fifty percent of the people. If 15 percent of the people want to vote for someone else, such that no one gets a majority ... so what?
And no, srogers, he provided not a single illustration of superiority, because, like you and Bruce, he provided no reason for anyone to think that this is better. All he did was express his opinion that it is better.
This is not actually a problem. No one has demonstrated that it is. You suffer under the delusion that our current system produces "wrong" results, but they are only "wrong" by your purely subjective standards. Most of us don't agree.
I could whine about the fact that if we had a national election and IRV, Bush likely would have won in 1992, because most Perot voters favored Bush to Clinton. But I have no problem with how it turned out, even though I preferred Bush and voted for him and would do so again: the Perot voters spoke, and they were heard, and Clinton won as a result. This is not a "problem" to be solved, except in that the Republican Party needed to learn how to attract more Perot voters.
You believe, however, that Bush should have won that election, that the voice of the Perot voters should have been counteracted by the system. But you can't give me any reason why, other than you ... simply like it better. Bully for you. What you like better isn't very interesting to me, though.
Wrong. It's because the majority of American voters liked it (Bush) better (than Clinton). Is that interesting to you?
(Of course, we don't know for sure that a majority preferred Bush to Clinton, as you've pointed out, but this is irrelevant. With IRV or another system, we would know.)
Posted by: Bruce on January 28, 2009 09:45 AMWrong. It's because the majority of American voters liked it (Bush) better (than Clinton).
Right, so in order to get Bush into office, the voice of Perot voters should be counteracted by the system. Exactly.
Is that interesting to you?
Not in any way that has any bearing on the system we use, no. Not at all. I trust the people to make their own choices. You honestly think the Perot voters didn't know they were hurting their second choice by voting for their first instead of their second? Of course they know that.
But what exactly is this "voice of Perot voters" that you so deeply revere? Arguably (again, we'd know for sure with IRV) these voters are saying "We like Perot best, but we like Bush more than Clinton". A system that listens to these voters -- not just to their first choice, but all their wishes -- is not "counteracting" their voice; it is respecting it.
I am truly perplexed by your refusal to acknowledge this point. Yes, the current system has the advantage of simplicity, and if you want to argue that that's more important than respecting the will of the majority of voters, go ahead. But your other points are so twisted, you sound like a high school debater given the exercise of defending a ridiculous position, except a high school debater wouldn't be allowed to include the juvenile insults. Either you are really dense mathematically or you are determined to stick to your original opinion no matter what facts or logic are presented. I truly don't know which.
Posted by: Bruce on January 28, 2009 10:31 AMUm. Their vote for Perot.
Arguably ... these voters are saying "We like Perot best, but we like Bush more than Clinton".
No, they are just saying they want to cast their vote for Perot.
A system that listens to these voters -- not just to their first choice, but all their wishes -- is not "counteracting" their voice; it is respecting it.
Um. If they WANTED their vote to be counted toward Bush (or Clinton), THEY WOULD HAVE CAST IT THAT WAY.
Posted by: pudge on January 28, 2009 10:34 AMThe difference is in utility.
I don't think it's the government's business why I want something, generally speaking.
Is there really a compelling public interest in allowing widespread use of silencers?
No, you have it backward. Come on, you know better: there needs to be a compelling public interest to DISALLOW their use. And I've heard none, other than fear that it could be used for ill ... which is the same with almost anything.
They are not necessary for self protection
In your opinion. I don't know and don't care. I don't have one or feel the need to have one, but I see no reason to tell someone else they can't have one.
In a similar analogy, we don't need to let people own howitzers even though I'm sure you could find some legal recreational use for them.
And you can get a howitzer. Doesn't it seem silly that you can get a howitzer, and not a silencer? :-)
I believe in reasonable restrictions too. I do believe in restrictions on things that INHERENTLY pose a significant danger to others simply by their existence, such as nuclear weapons, biological weapons, etc. Silencers do not pose such an inherent danger.
There is. The fact that if someone murders someone next door to me, I'll hear it and notify police.
I do believe in restrictions on things that INHERENTLY pose a significant danger to others simply by their existence
So you want to ban cigarettes? :)
Posted by: Palouse on January 28, 2009 10:59 AMThere is. The fact that if someone murders someone next door to me, I'll hear it and notify police.
But just as with guns, criminals are not the ones who obey the "no silencers" laws.
So you want to ban cigarettes? :)
In public near me? Yes.
Um. Their vote for Perot."
The "Um" is just nastiness. As if Bruce is too stupid to reach your lofty level of intelligence. "Their vote for Perot" is not the full extent of their "voice," and you know it. The system you favor narrows their voice to something less than their full intention and desire in determining who will be President.
"Arguably ... these voters are saying "We like Perot best, but we like Bush more than Clinton".
No, they are just saying they want to cast their vote for Perot."
And once again, the same, lame schoolyard bully argument (did to, did not, did to, did not). The voters WANT to say they prefer Perot, but if he's out they would prefer Bush. But the system you prefer prevents them from making this choice and leaves them with only a dilemma - throw away their vote or vote for their second choice in hopes their third choice doesn't win. This is only aggravated by the two party system - a candidate who may be favored by a majority of voters can be relegated to the ash can of history if they refuse to adopt all of the planks of one of the parties and therefore are not blessed with party affiliation in the election. This can turn an honest election into an exercise in corruption. IRV voting dilutes the power of the parties and reduces the likelihood of such corruption.
You give no REASON your system is better other than one person SHOULD get just one vote (no REASON WHY is given other than you like it that way, nor do you give any evidence that IRV allows someone more than one actual vote). But Bruce, Terry, and I have given you REASONS why IRV is better - it only produces a winner if that candidate is the true choice of a majority of voters and it reduces the likelihood of corruption in the system. The system you favor repeatedly produces winners who are not favored by the majority of voters, it caters to the desires of the two parties rather than the voters, and it helps the parties retain their monopoly on political power and campaign funding.
Oh yes, I met IRV, not PVI. Did you really not know that? Are you dumb, or just an a$$?
Posted by: srogers on January 28, 2009 12:02 PMTrue. But if we banned the manufacture of silencers (as I think we should), there's far less of them available in distribution. I see a much greater public interest in banning them over allowing them for the interest of using them at gun ranges (or whatever other so-called "need"), where it's loud regardless.
Posted by: Palouse on January 28, 2009 12:23 PMThe "Um" is just nastiness.
YAWN.
"Their vote for Perot" is not the full extent of their "voice," and you know it.
It is how they chose to express their voice, and you know it.
The system you favor narrows their voice to something less than their full intention and desire in determining who will be President.
EVERY POSSIBLE SYSTEM does this.
The voters WANT to say they prefer Perot, but if he's out they would prefer Bush.
You're lying. You are saying something you CANNOT POSSIBLY know is true, and stating it as a fact. Why do you even believe it to be true, when it's completely obvious that you cannot possibly know it? You have NO reason OF ANY KIND to believe that they want to say this.
And, of course, you have presented no reason why even if they WANT to say it, why it would be a good thing.
But the system you prefer prevents them from making this choice and leaves them with only a dilemma ...
What you call a "dilemma" I call an "expression of liberty."
... throw away their vote or vote for their second choice in hopes their third choice doesn't win.
Right, like I said, you disrespect how other people exercise their right to vote. You think is is throwing away their vote. They do not. As a sometimes third-party voter (I voted for Harry Browne in 1996), I did not believe I was throwing my vote away. I was expressing myself.
This is only aggravated by the two party system - a candidate who may be favored by a majority of voters can be relegated to the ash can of history if they refuse to adopt all of the planks of one of the parties and therefore are not blessed with party affiliation in the election.
No, they can't be. If they were favored by a majority of the voters, they would run as an independent and win. If they run as an independent and do not win, then by definition, they were not favored by a majority of voters.
This is called democracy. The parties are democratic organizations. If they don't like you, you can't represent them. You find another party that will want you to represent them, or you go as an independent. And if enough people like you -- and a majority would be enough -- then you win.
I am all for opening up the system to third parties. I am in favor of reform of debate systems, campaign financing, and more to make it easier for third parties and independents to get their message out and attract voters. IRV makes it HARDER on third parties to have an impact: they may get more votes, but those votes are then eliminated from actually having an impact on the outcome.
You give no REASON your system is better other than one person SHOULD get just one vote
I hinted at a few, but I am not asking for change, I do not need to provide reasons why "my" system is better. You see how that works?
But Bruce, Terry, and I have given you REASONS why IRV is better - it only produces a winner if that candidate is the true choice of a majority of voters and it reduces the likelihood of corruption in the system.
No, unfortunately: you have said that, yes, but you are not saying WHY the result you describe -- majority of people prefer candidate A to B -- is better than simple one man, one vote plurality.
As to corruption, you have not given any example of such: you've merely asserted, incorrectly, that it is corrupt for a party to exclude a candidate that the party doesn't want representing them. That is democracy, and the right to association, not corruption.
The system you favor repeatedly produces winners who are not favored by the majority of voters
Perhaps occasionally. So what? You've given no reason to think that's bad.
it caters to the desires of the two parties rather than the voters, and it helps the parties retain their monopoly on political power and campaign funding.
No, it doesn't. On the contrary, IRV protects the interests of the two parties. Because of the threat of "losing" votes to third parties, the two parties need to cater to the middle. In IRV, they don't have that concern to nearly the same level.
Again: in IRV, third parties get more votes initially, but in the end those votes have less impact, and therefore the third parties themselves will be even further marginalized.
Oh yes, I met IRV, not PVI. Did you really not know that?
Did I really not read your mind? Yes, I really did not. There's a dozen different alternative voting schemes, and IRV is just one; how am I to know you were not proposing a different-but-similar system I hadn't heard of?
You disagree, so YOU SUCK. :-)
Posted by: pudge on January 28, 2009 12:28 PM""Their vote for Perot" is not the full extent of their "voice," and you know it.
It is how they chose to express their voice, and you know it."
How can you POSSIBLY know that they chose this method to express their voice when THEY HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE. The system you support forced this "choice" on them.
"The voters WANT to say they prefer Perot, but if he's out they would prefer Bush.
You're lying. You are saying something you CANNOT POSSIBLY know is true, and stating it as a fact. Why do you even believe it to be true, when it's completely obvious that you cannot possibly know it? You have NO reason OF ANY KIND to believe that they want to say this."
I wanted to say I preferred Perot, but if he was out, I would prefer Bush. Now maybe I am the only one of (insert correct number of millions here) of voters back then who felt this way, but that would be about as likely as all of the electrons in my body simultaneously moving in one direction and hurling me across the room. Therefore, I have a good reason, of the most rational kind, to believe that "they", as in many Perot voters, wanted to say that.
"Right, like I said, you disrespect how other people exercise their right to vote. You think is is throwing away their vote. THEY DO NOT [my emphasis]. As a sometimes third-party voter (I voted for Harry Browne in 1996), I did not believe I was throwing my vote away. I was expressing myself."
Pudge, you're lying. You are saying something you CANNOT POSSIBLY know is true, and stating it as a fact. Why do you even believe it to be true, when it's completely obvious that you cannot possibly know it? You have NO reason OF ANY KIND to believe that they want to say this.
Actually, I don't think you're lying. I'm just throwing your BS back in your face. Your basing your belief as to what these voters want to say on your own feelings when you voted for Harry Browne is just as valid as my belief as to what Perot voters wanted to say based on what I wanted to say when I voted for Bush. However, if you think you were "expressing yourself" by voting, you might as well scream into an abandoned well - nobody is going to hear you, or care. I don't believe that most people are willing to use their vote for such an ineffective and pointless venture. Its more likely they vote so as to get their candidate elected, or to get their second choice elected in cases where their first choice is a third party or independent candidate, their second choice is the candidate of the major party they favor, and their third choice is the candidate of the major party they [hate, don't favor, whatever].
"If they were favored by a majority of the voters, they would run as an independent and win. If they run as an independent and do not win, then by definition, they were not favored by a majority of voters."
If you believe this, then you are naive. What if you had a candidate who favored the limited right to an abortion as defined in Roe v. Wade, favored legalizing drugs and perhaps favored some of the other personal rights issues favored by democrats, but was also a dogged protector of the right to the possession and use of firearms, supported President Bush's initiation and prosecution of the war in Iraq and was pro-death penalty. This candidate might be favored by 35% of Republicans, 35% of Democrats, he would be unaffiliated with either party, and would be perfectly able to win a runoff election between himself and the candidate favored by either party. He would also be favored by a majority of the set of both Democrats and Republicans, yet under the system you favor, he has a 0% chance of getting elected. However, with either runoff elections or IRV, he has a very good chance of being elected. The difference is THE SYSTEM, not the will of the voters. I favor the system that best expresses the will of the voters, not the system that best expresses the will of the parties.
Posted by: srogers on January 28, 2009 03:45 PMHow can you POSSIBLY know that they chose this method to express their voice
Um. Because that is what they actually did. Or are you denying they voted Perot, and that they wanted to vote for Perot?
I wanted to say I preferred Perot, but if he was out, I would prefer Bush.
Yes, but you are only one person. You said what you did about Perot voters in general. You have no idea whether your view constitutes a majority or a minority.
Therefore, I have a good reason, of the most rational kind, to believe that "they", as in many Perot voters, wanted to say that.
No, in fact, you have NO reason WHATSOEVER. Or did you never learn in school that you cannot generalize your views and experiences to a larger population?
You are saying something you CANNOT POSSIBLY know is true
Um. I cannot know that I did not think I was throwing my vote away? You really think that?
Your basing your belief as to what these voters want to say on your own feelings when you voted for Harry Browne is just as valid as my belief as to what Perot voters wanted to say based on what I wanted to say when I voted for Bush.
You are, of course, clearly misinterpreting what I wrote. What I said was that YOUR CLAIM that THEY think a certain way is wrong, and I am proof of that. I never stated, nor implied, that SOME of them don't think the way you described. I said THEY, AS A WHOLE, do not think that way, and I know this, because I am part of THEY and I do not think that way.
However, if you think you were "expressing yourself" by voting, you might as well scream into an abandoned well
Your silly opinion is duly noted, and discarded as irrelevant.
I don't believe that most people are willing to use their vote for such an ... venture.
Neither do I. But most PEROT voters, or NADER voters, or BROWNE voters? It is quite possible.
Its more likely they vote so as to get their candidate elected ...
I hope you don't really think most Perot or Nader or Browne voters thought there was a serious chance of their candidate winning. Not only is there no evidence to support that, but there's a ton of counterevidence, including the fact that such voters tend to be more engaged, and educated, than the general public, who are much more likely to pick one of the top two candidates.
Again, this boils down to the fact -- as I stated at the top -- that you disrespect the decision of people to use their vote in a way that YOU think is "ineffective" and "pointless." You think they are stupid or ignorant or ... whatever.
You like IRV because you don't respect the voters.
If you believe this, then you are naive.
It's a fact. There's nothing to NOT believe about it. The candidate favored by a majority will win every time. The only reason he won't win is if -- wait for it -- he is not favored. If I kinda like some candidate who can't win my party's nomination, and I also kinda like a candidate who DOES win my party's nomination, and so I am choosing between them ... if I pick the party nominee it's because I FAVOR HIM over the independent. That's how it works.
What if ... He would also be favored by a majority of the set of both Democrats and Republicans, yet under the system you favor, he has a 0% chance of getting elected.
That's not true at all. If he runs as an independent, he has a great chance of winning under the American system. See Jesse Ventura as an example. You might argue he is an exception, but I'd simply argue that candidates who do not succeed as he did simply are not favored by a majority of the voters. If they were, they would win.
I favor the system that best expresses the will of the voters ...
Funny you say this, since you just got through dismissing the will of certain voters is "ineffective" and "pointless."
I had no idea there was a federal law that even allowed these at all. Someone please fill me in on why this is even being proposed.
Posted by: Palouse on January 27, 2009 03:14 PM
***
Palouse,
The current law in Washington state is rather absurd in that it allows you to POSSESS a suppressor, but not actually USE one.
Suppressors are legal under federal law, though they are highly restricted under the National Firearms Act. In order to legally possess one, you must (amongst other things) undergo a federal background check which includes fingerprinting, and pay for a $200 tax stamp, and wait months for the form to be processed by the ATF before you can take possession of one that you have already purchased from a specially licensed dealer. They are individually serialized, and the ATF has a record of every single one that is legally produced or imported. The suppressor may only be accessible to/used/possessed by the registered owner -- and the whole process must be repeated anytime the suppressor changes ownership.
Federal laws pertaining to suppressor are VERY strictly enforced by the ATF. If a criminal intends to use a suppressor despite federal law, it is far easier to make or obtain an illegally made or imported one on the black market. As such, criminal use of legally owned suppressors is unheard of -- particularly since they don't make a vast majority of guns 'whisper quiet' like in the movies (a supersonic bullet still 'cracks' through the sound barrier). Even legal ownership in states where they are not restricted beyond federal law is rare due to the cost and legal hoops involved in obtaining one.
For the competitive sport shooter, this is an important change. It takes thousands of rounds of practice per year to be competitive in competition. Despite ear protection, this much shooting over the years will cause hearing loss over time -- a suppressor decreases the report enough that with ear protection, potential hearing loss is eliminated.
This change would also help protect the shooting ranges where such competitors practice -- as population increases, homes get built near existing shooting ranges. Suppressors used by high volume competition shooters would reduce the noise experienced by nearby residents. In many European countries, suppressor use on firearms is REQUIRED specifically because of the noise issues.
Additionally, this change will put Washington more in line with the laws in our neighboring states (OR and ID).
Text of the bill is here:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1604.pdf