One way Unity08 might want to pick candidates is by a process that can pick "the best few" from a pool of many. There are various schemes that all fall under the term "Proportional Representation" for picking the "most representative N" from a large pool of candidates.
I've set up a prototype of one kind of poll that will pick the "most representative five" of thirty two possible tickets. The software I used has some limits... but it gives a sense of how we could pick "the most interesting N candidates" from a large pool. Please, go look at the poll, vote in it and see how the "best five" are identified, email a link to all your friends and family, and then think about how we might use this approach (perhaps over and over making the pool smaller over time) to find good candidates.
There are all kinds of reasons this poll isn't what the final thing should be like. Things to think about:
1. We might want something that makes it easy to vote on 1000 candidates in a short amount of time... perhaps the ability to export someone's votes so they could email their ballot to friends with less time who could load up the file, twiddle the order a little bit, and vote using that.
2. The prototype poll is totally insecure. It lets anyone vote as many times as they want and trusts people to not abuse it. Better systems would require an email address. And knowing the full name of the person. And verifying their name with maybe a credit card payment that could be charged $5 and the money returned. And comparing the name and address on the credit card to the database of registrar of voters. And doing it all with strong crypto... and making all the ballots "anonymously available" by a serial number so voters can be sure their ballot is in there... and giving a separate full list of voters with the same number of entries so every ballot can be inferred to have come from exactly one person on the list of voters (who isn't complaining that they didn't vote but are on the list or didn't vote the way the other list says they did)...
3. And so on. This is obviously a *bad* system but maybe it could be improved to something workable with six months of software development informed by suggestions from the people of the Unity Movement
To repeat for emphasis: Please, go look at the poll, vote in it and see how the "best five" are identified, email a link to all your friends and family, and then think about how we might use this approach (perhaps over and over making the pool smaller over time) to find good candidates.
I've been bouncing all over the net encouraging people to vote on the prototype, both to see how it works and to raise awareness of the unity movement.
If you want to help raise awareness the biggest thing you could do is go to http://digg.com/political_opinion/Who_should_run_for_president_in_2008 and "digg" this poll. If we get enough diggs in a short enough period and make it to digg.com's main page we'll get exposure to tens of thousands of eyeballs.
In the meantime, 37 people have voted. It's interesting to watch how 5 people from a given community can show up and sway the vote drastically in one directiom. 12 people in the last couple hours came in and put either Newt Gingirch or Condi Rice as their number one choice for president where before these two were no where on the radar (and Nader was showing up in the "most representative five").
Currently (with 37 votes) the "most representative five people to choose between" of the 32 in the running are:
Condoleezza Rice
Al Gore
Colin Powell
Newt Gingrich
Rudy Giuliani
Trying to interpret the factions being represented here I call that as "the pro war vote", "the eco/lib vote", "the anti-war centrist vote", "the paleocon vote", and "another centrist vote".
If you haven't voted yet, try it out!
http://www.demochoice.org/dcballot.html?poll=Unity0801
-Jennifer
Jen, thanks for setting this up this vote, it's an interesting trial run.I know you have your qualms with IRV and it not passing the Condorcet criterion.
For some reason type of voting system just doesn't feel right to me. Basically if I only rank my top 5 choice using this voting method the rest of the candidates with a no-vote get unfairly pushed back. I think this method may work better if everyone was FORCED to rank EVERY candidate, but obviously this gets hard with more candidates, and much more tedious for the voter.
I would rather have a system where I can put a lot of weight behind my top 1 or 2 choices, and then create a group of people which get an even amount of the rest of my vote. I believe cumulative voting is our most fair and most transparent forms of voting which adheres to the Condorcet criterion.
This example might make things more clear:
With cumulative voting, I would have maybe 10 votes to give out as I want. I could give 5 to my top choice, 2 to my section choice, and 1 to each of my next three choices. In this case my bottom 3 choices only get 1 vote (one ahead of all those with no vote). In the Rated method that you set up, a 5th place vote, even if it's my last place vote, carries MUCH more weight against those who get no vote.
I'm still trying to formulate all this, so I hope it's came out somewhat clear. I'd like to discuss the topic some more, and see if we can't come to an agreement on the best voting method.
I also have reservations conducting a candidate poll for the unity08 movement. I personally would like to see us debate and vote on the specific issues and ideas that unity08 will uphold. Only then can we truly find the candidate which best matches our opinion. Anything else is simply a popularity contest.
Jennifer:
First: "...I call that as "the pro war vote", "the eco/lib vote", "the anti-war centrist vote", "the paleocon vote", and "another centrist vote". Thank you, thank you...if there's one thing that's desperately needed as we try to sort out the mess we're in, it's to retain a sense of humor and proportion. (Paleocon. I love that.)
I did go check out your poll. I do think you've got a good idea going there, and I commend you, from the bottom of my heart, for making note of the technical security issues. There are people who can help with that. It's not my area, but I can ask my husband, if you'd like me to put you in touch with him.
Tolas' comments on finding issues and ideas is also valuable, but those have to be embodied in candidates. My suggestion there, on another of the fora, was to invite the potential candidates to offer statements of their principles, programs, and priorities, that could be posted on the site for everyone to read and evaluate prior to the convention.
Jen-
What great fun! I voted all and found that exercis of itself pretty fascinating. Was't surprised to see Colin coming in first - thrilled to see two African-Americans (I deplore hyphens but am trying to be proper, you know) doing so well. I'm going to take a leap and assume that the voter community was at least somewhat GOP biased seeing how quick the fade was - am no mathemetician so this is just a guess.
I think this is a great start and could generate something that would be quite useful. I rather like the notion of voting the whole slate and don't think its too onerous a requirement. So long as the Wiki blurbs per candidate are disgustingly objective and equal in size & scope it should have value.
Will leave the math to you geniuses for now - just be prepared to defend it before you roll it out...
Mark Greene
Texas Democrat in the Middle
So, I've been trying to get Unity08 some press and get some conversation going on the subject of polls. I tried to get the poll and the rules committee slashdotted but the story was rejected.
The Kuro5hin community was told about the deal and it spawned a 33 comment long discussion (before you click it, be warned: lots of foul mouthed trolls over there). The format and candidate options were objected to which lead to a second discussion which was *also* an "anyone can nominate, do approval voting of the options" poll which (as of this post - the poll is still going) produced a four way tie for first:
Al Gore
Barak Obama
Tex BigBalls - one of the Kuro5hin users.
None of the above
Plus the good old fashioned Unity Supporters Forum has another 16 posts on the subject.
For those of you just tuning in, the poll this is all about is at 114 voters and climbing...
-Jennifer
This is all fine but it is the political icon's platform that needs definition, if any of these icons will come forward we would all hug them... but none come forward to carry our ball? But until they come forward and define a progressive platform, the man himself won't be able to help us without a platform or a hello ... Earn Snyder
Author "$aving the bureaucracy - Killing the beast"
Modern Progressive Independent
www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
I'm far too dense to understand the math and methodology in your sample poll. Was heartened to see my friend Wes Clark emerge from nowhere and finish near the top! How does that work? Last night Condi and Colin were running away with it...
Mark Greene
Texas Democrat in the Middle
So some of what I think is going on is that the "pools of voters" who are hearing about the poll keep changing. Probably there are emails and rumors flying around the net by now and one juicy "vein of people" with a particular set of opinions come in and shove the results in some direction. Back when the number of voters was in the 50's, a day or two before Lieberman lost and got his name all over the press, he was nowhere. He didn't have a *single* "favorite" vote.
As the 50th through the 100th vote came in Newt Gingrinch rocketed to the front with like 9 favorites with Condi close behind with like 7. Probably a different pool of people heard about the poll.
As I write this, we're up to 141 ballots and Colin Powell is at the top with 11 votes with McCain and Wesley Clark with 10 favorite votes each. So some centrists and democrat leaning people voted in a rush.
--
Plus, always keep in mind that voting over and over isn't forbidden the way the software is setup. (Polls can be set up so that only people who control emails from a list can vote, and then only once, but I don't know people's email addresses so I couldn't use that.) So right now *everyone* can stuff the ballots, but if some candidate has particularly unscupulous supporters they have an advantage until the security gets beefed up.
---
And in the meantime the voting is done using something called "Instant Runoff Voting" (IRV) which has many supporters for reasons I can't really understand. I personally don't think IRV is a good algorithm because it's so sensitive to people's "favorite votes". Here's an example:
Suppose there are four groups from far left to far right: G, D, R, L (that's suppose to remind you of Green, Dem, Repub, Libertarian) and their favorite candidates are just the little letters: g, d, r, l
Suppose there are 35 voters who belong to the various parties who prefer people in this way:
5 G: g,d,r,l
12 D: d,g,r,l
11 R: r,l,d,g
7 L: l,r,d,g
So the second line says "There are 12 Democracts who like the democratic candidate first, then the green, then the republican, then the libertarian."
I'm going to add a fifth candidate (called u, because she is the Unity candidate) and two extra people to be the Unity Movement (our movement is bipartisan so there's two factions). We vote "u first and then like democrats" or "u first and then like republicans"... The trick is that *everyone* likes our candidate second place... because she's just so darn reasonable and likable. Here's how our candidate and we fit in:
5 G: g,u,d,r,l
12 D: d,u,g,r,l
1 Ud: u,d,g,r,l
1 Ur: u,r,l,d,g
11 R: r,u,l,d,g
7 L: l,u,r,d,g
The way this is set up u wins versus anyone else SO LONG AS THERE'S ONLY THOSE TWO CANDIDATES RUNNING:
u VERSUS g => 5 greens VERSUS 32 of everyone else
u VERSUS d => 12 dems VERSUS 25
u VERSUS r => 11 repubs VERSUS 24
u VERSUS l => 7 libertarians VERSUS 30
"u" is what is called the "Condorcet Winner" of the election because (1) when you compare her to any other single candidate she always wins and (2) the first person to figure this out (200 years ago) was a enlightenment philosopher named Marie Jean Antoine Nicolas de Caritat Condorcet.
(Incidentally, I think Condorcet was pretty cool, here's a quote of his: "Ideas of uniformity, of regularity, please all minds, especially just minds. ... uniformity of measures can only displease those lawyers who fear to see the number of lawsuits diminished, and those traders who fear a loss of profit from anything which renders commercial transactions easy and simple ... A good law ought to be good for all men, as a good proposition in geometry is good for all men." Does that sound like a unity position or what?)
IRV picks people by paying attention only to "favorites so far" and throwing out the candidate with the least favorite... so it works like this:
FIRST RUNOFF: "u" has only 2 (The U's) and is dropped
5 G: g,u,d,r,l
12 D: d,u,g,r,l
1 Ud: u,d,g,r,l
1 Ur: u,r,l,d,g
11 R: r,u,l,d,g
7 L: l,u,r,d,g
SECOND RUNOFF: "g" has only 5 votes (the G's) and is dropped
5 G: g,d,r,l
12 D: d,g,r,l
1 Ud: d,g,r,l
1 Ur: r,l,d,g
11 R: r,l,d,g
7 L: l,r,d,g
THIRD RUNOFF: "l" has only 7 votes (the L's) and is dropped
5 G: d,r,l
12 D: d,r,l
1 Ud: d,r,l
1 Ur: r,l,d
11 R: r,l,d
7 L: l,r,d
4th AND FINAL RUNOFF: "r" has 19 votes (R, L, and Ur) while "d" has 18 votes (D, G, Ud)... but "d" had a secretary of state in a swing state running the election who happened to be democrat and so the votes are counted as 17 to 18 (two R ballots were ignored because of hanging chads)... only to be overruled by a republican controlled supreme court giving the election "r" and causing everyone to hate everyone else and highlighting the need for (1) nonpartisan election officals and (2) also picking the supreme court in a way that finds the condorcet winner.
5 G: d,r
12 D: d,r
1 Ud: d,r
1 Ur: r,d
11 R: r,d
7 L: r,d
So, in a nutshell: IRV kicks out the reasonable candidate who is no one's favorite but everyone's second choice. It does this because at each stage it only cares about who is the very favoritest of various groups, ignoring everything else about their preferences. That's why IRV stinks from the perspective of the Unity Party... but since it never makes any practical difference to the Democrats and Republicans and lets Greens and Libertarians "vote their conscience" it's catching on in lots of circles.
I see IRV as a total wimp out.
I want Unity to use something *other* than IRV. Anything that selects the "reasonable person" (the "Condorcet Winner") sounds good to me... There's like 6 well studied ways to count ballots that get this person... but I've already written way more than most people will read, so I'll stop now.
---
Wait no... one last thing...
In the real election, in November 2024, IF we can make the situation look like this:
5 G: u,d,r
12 D: d,u,r
1 Ud: u,d,r
1 Ur: u,r,d
11 R: r,u,d
7 L: u,r,d
This would represent a situation where no extreme has a major viable candidate but we do. We get the protest vote of every extreme (left, right, up, and down) and we get the "radical middle".
THEN the November 2024 election results would look like this:
12: Hilary Clinton (D)
14: Our Condorcet Winner (U,L,G,...)
11: Newt Gingrich (R)
And that's how we win and change America. We have to bring together all the radical fringe groups. These groups have to be slightly bigger than the Dems alone or the Repubs alone. And we have to find "everyone's second place candidate". The Dems and Repubs wouldn't even be that angry with us because our candidate is also both of their second places so their response is "at least it wasn't the other side who won".
(If you want to read more about this stuff, wikipedia lists the voting methods that select the condorcet winner if possible and also the ones that don't.)
Have a nice day! :-)
-Jennifer
Both voting methods make it less likely that a traditional "one vote" majority winner will be elected. But Jennifer, you have demostrated how IRV can yield one outcome, Condorcet another. QED, the outcomes in elections that use preference voting depend on the method used.
But only one outcome from your two examples can be right. At least one and possible both are wrong. Now by right and wrong I mean who the voters in aggregate most want elected. People vote, the votes are counted, and out of that a winner emerges. But Condorcet and IRV results differ with the same people voting. To me that's a big red flag. Which one is RIGHT? It can't be both, and it may be neither.
Start wth IRV. It's supposed to yield better results than "winner take all." IRV proponents start by knocking "winner take all" then expect me to accept their rather vague reasoning that IRV is somehow better. (I find there are just too many "buy intos" along the way, but that's just me.)
Jennifer, you make a similar case for Condorcet being superior to IRV by knocking IRV, then pointing to how Unity08 benefits more from Condorcet than IRV.
Well you may be right about Condorcet improving the chances for Unity08 (and possibly other 3rd parties like Libertarian and Green). But that is no different in principle from why preference voting advocates criticize "most votes wins." That system may be rigged, but then so is the one you propose, because it favors your candidate's chances.
That's politics for ya.
NotAnonymous wrote:
> Well you may be right about Condorcet improving the chances for
> Unity08 (and possibly other 3rd parties like Libertarian and Green).
> But that is no different in principle from why preference voting
> advocates criticize "most votes wins." That system may be rigged,
> but then so is the one you propose, because it favors your
> candidate's chances.
>
> That's politics for ya.
Heh. OK, I totally grant that I'm arguing for something that will help "my side" gain influence and power. Two things:
(1) Condorcet is more like a "test for a voting method" than a voting method itself. It says "if a candidate has such and such properties in a field of candidates, that candidate is best". There are *lots* of methods that meet the criteria and lots that don't. They have various subtle (and big) differences besides whether they select the Condorcet winner or not.
(2) I'm arguing for what will benefit us as a group of people seeking influence and power over the political process... but it only benefits us if we actually propose a candidate that "everybody is at least OK with".
I'm arguing that those kind of candidates are inherently good and that restricting ourselves to those kinds of candidates is a way we can collectively keep our movement fair and unifying and honest.
IF we have such a candidate, it stands to reason that we should have a chance at the polls in November 2024... but I think that stems from the true goodness of that kind of candidate rather than from some sort of voting counting shenanigan. The Condorcet criterion is simply *fair*. The more I have examined voting systems and looked into the details the more fair it appears.
As I quoted before...
"Ideas of uniformity, of regularity, please all minds, especially just minds. ... uniformity of measures can only displease those lawyers who fear to see the number of lawsuits diminished, and those traders who fear a loss of profit from anything which renders commercial transactions easy and simple ... A good law ought to be good for all men, as a good proposition in geometry is good for all men." - Marie Jean Antoine Nicolas de Caritat Condorcet
-Jennifer
Your polling efforts are the first glimmer of hope I've seen on this site since I signed up in June.
This is the power of the internet! Not just "blah, blah, blah, blah" - which is all over the place - on the web and on this site.
The genius of American Democracy is the delicate balance between the 3 branches of government, the Missouri compromise, voting rules. All very dry, technical stuff - but essentially the GUTS of our functioning government. As genius as that model is/was, it has not kept up with the demands of the modern communications age. K street is having middle America for lunch!
In this electronic era, it's time for a new model - new guts. Those who figure out how to use the internet to constructively channel the thoughts of thousands of people into a coherent political program with viable candidates will be the leaders of the 21st century. And you are among them.
Jennifer, the founders should lock you in a room with the web team and not let you out until you have completely redesigned this site!!!!!
Keep up the great work!
I hope you don't mind I have copied your copy "TromboneErik" and would like your permission to use it in future stuff at my website if that's okay... will credit you if I can with something other than "TromboneErik"! hehe! Your right Jennifer does rock and is wise beyond her years! As she and I already know are candidate! Don't tell them Jennifer! Any one more important thing... remember we are taking the executive not a congressional seat so we are to dream for the office and it will be up to congress to dictate the degree our dreams will be implemented... making this fight much easier for us! LET'S ROLL! - Earn Snyder
Author "$aving the bureaucracy - Killing the beast"
Modern Progressive Independent
www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
For we are a movement toward the executive and not legislative seats - yet!!!! As the degree of our reform policy will be implemented at a degree suitable by congress and those that still hide in the shadows of congress... but at least we the people "as the executive" will demand that R&D be started in these ways, hopefully we can find someone who has a clue... as technology in all ways is a winning strategy as it has not been implemented to a 100th of it's potential yet, trust me, just about everything we now do with computers is backwards and not proper in regards to saving trillions... - Snyder
Author "$aving the bureaucracy - Killing the beast"
Modern Progressive Independent
www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
IRV is great because it allows all the different candidates to regroup on issues as the voting rounds move forward... especially if while voting the candidates that move forward can get feedback from each one of the voters from the last round... so that those that do move forward in IRV can review and make the adjustments for the next run-off... I'm sure this will refine our center even more... and the more run-offs we have the better our platform will be... I'm gonna cry! GO GO GO! - Earn Snyder
Author "$aving the bureaucracy - Killing the beast"
Modern Progressive Independent
www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
I picked Giuliani first and found he was in the lead. The more I think of it, the better I like him. If we endorse him now we will get a lot of publicity and it won't hurt him either. The longer we wait the harder it will be to get anyone interested in what we're doing.
John Gelles
My Website
mailto:john.gelles@gmail.com
How to pay for human rights is the question.
Why was Herr Schwarzenegger included in this poll? He is not a natural born U.S. citizen and thus cannot constitutionally be president of the United States. Can the people behind Unity08 really be this stupid? Is this a serious political movement or just a lame civics exercise?
BTW: The last time an Austrian became head of state of a country other than Austria, Adolph Hitler became Fuehrer of Germany.
To be fair, flaja, Jennifer is not an official part of the Unity08.com leadership. She runs a support website, but is otherwise one of the little people, the hoi polloi, just like you-n-me. So the Schwarzenegger suggestion is not one from the "people behind Unity08."
========
Jim Cook
Irregular Times
http://irregulartimes.com
Did I not find Schwarzenegger's name in a poll which was either on or linked to from the Unity08 website? Even if Unity08’s leadership did not include Schwarzenegger on its website, it failed to fully examine a website that supposedly aids Unity08.
While realizing that this was a prototype of sorts and not the real thing, I like the concept and hope the founders will hurry up and get something similar going. the longer we wait, the more time the big two will garner support and make it harder for us to achieve anything. We don't have to have a finial candidate or anything just yet but the sooner we start, the more people will be hopefully involved, which should translate into a higher public awareness and increased support.
Step !. Prepare Our "Manifesto Of Reform" The Selected 6 Items That Best Reflect The Core Issues ..
Step 2. Select A Group Of Candidates - Courier (FED EX) A Copy To Each Candidate With Request For A Written Declaration Of Intent On How They Would Vote On Each Reform .. Allow 14 Days For A Written Response ..
Step 3. Have A UNITY08 Panel Review The Responses, Select Candidates & Provide A Written Rationale On The Website ..
Step 4. Delegates Vote ..
Publicise the Action Taken - What & To Whom - Response Requiremenrs & Schedule - Candidates Reaction - Candidates Response !!
This would be recognized as a serious and substantial move toward generating Vital Information for 2024 and beyond, and could start growing support - of the type needed.
popo
<
If Unity08's only purpose is to elect the next President of the United States, when will he have an opportunity to vote on any of the Unity08 issues? As far as the Constitution is concerned, the President can only sign or veto legislation (or allow it to become law without his signature). He has no formal role in the process by which laws are written, debated and approved by Congress. The President gets no vote.
I agree the Presidency is constitutionally a fairly weak office. But the Prez does have the power of the pulpit (for those who have that ability to use it that is)and the power of administrative implementation. Congress if it is to be effective in writing and passing legislation must consider the means of implementation and that is were the President comes in. What we need above all, beside a well focused on the mega-issues platform, is a candidate that: 1) has the oratorical ability/political courage as President to go above Congress and K Street's heads to appeal directly to the American people on what he believes; and/or 2) a great intuitive sense on how Washington really works and how to get things done where the rubbermeets the road! A candidate covering one of these above is mandatory. A candidate that covers both would be Great! And a good well-focused platform by Unity 08 on the mega-issues could provide the strategic bipartisan framework that could help a candidate/President who fits the above bill.
Rather than ranking the candidates in some poll, I think a Petition process would be better.
Just to throw some numbers out, say 5% of delegates have to support a particular candidate to get his or her name on the nominating ballot.
This sort of process should help idenify the bugs that will invariably crop up in the convention process, as well as ensure that delegates are REAL people.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/