SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Pirate Party looks set for a successful outing in the coming weekend's Icelandic elections.
A poll by local newspaper Morgunblaðið and the Icelandic Social Science Research Institute of the University of Iceland reports support for the Pirate Party is running at about 22.6 per cent, a point-and-a-half ahead of the ruling Independence Party and four points clear of the Left-Greens. That's impressive support, although the party's support has fallen a couple of points since March 2015.
Iceland uses s proportional representation system so the party's current level of support will likely translate into about 15 seats in the 63-member Althingi.
That won't be not enough for Píratar, the party's Icelandic name, to take government. It's also ruled out a coalition with the Independence Party.
But earlier this year Independence split and the recently-formed splinter group Viðreisn (tr. "Regeneration") is polling at 8.8 per cent and has ruled out joining a government with any of the current coalition parties. If the Pirates can align with Viðreisn and other like-minded parties it may therefore become part of a governing coalition and win some ministries.
Four years for a party founded by geeks to take over the government is not bad.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 27 2016, @03:57PM
Your ideas are interesting and insightful, and I would like to learn more.
1. ensure transparent and trustworthy elections
How are current elections (not primaries, but the actual elections) not transparent enough? Do you have any examples you want to point to? About the only thing I can think of are electronic voting systems or mail-in voting, which I would be mostly agreed to abolishing.
2. enact instant runoff/ranked choice voting methods
How would you run this? Electronic voting (with their known potential for being disrupted or hacked)? Paper ballots, in which case what army of people would you employ counting ballots and ensuring nobody was engaging in fraud. Counting first-past-the-post is difficult, but a known process and easy to audit. Instant run-off is literally exponentially more difficult.
free media for candidates (oops, there goes 90% of the reason for raising obscene amounts of money for campaigns)
Great idea! Who pays for it? Are you going to require all TV, news, and magazines offer 100% free access (that sounds very much like nationalizing private industry... and anti-free speech)? What do you do when the Democrats ask for 100% of the TV time, and the Republicans also ask for 100% of the TV time? How do you distinguish between the Libertarians who also ask for 100% of the TV time, and Joe Blogger Political Party (who his 3 members, so you know it's a real thing) who asks for 100% of the TV time?
reversal of fictitious legal entities known as korporations from having SUPERIOR rights to mere flesh-and-blood people in determining their gummint
In what way does a corporation have superior rights? They have superior money, and as a result superior access to labor and resources... but as far as rights? Last I heard, they have fewer rights (e.g. they can't take the 5th amendment in the face of police inquiry). However, they probably do have more power, but only because one corporation can represent a unified front of thousands of people.
Put another way, I'd guess if you got 5000 people to march on your state legislator you would have more impact than if you had a corporation of 5000 people making "shady dealings" with the same legislator. It's just easier and more common for that corporation to act so people notice it more.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 27 2016, @04:26PM
I'll tackle the last two.
Free Media: Easy fix, government run video service. Political messages and advertisements are ONLY allowed on the gov site or their own personal sites. No paying for ads elsewhere. Such a service would not cost that much overall, and the infrastructure could also support other gov activities as well.
Korporations: Reverse their legal status as persons. It is beyond ridiculous to consider them as persons and it is about the least democratic thing we have going. The corps don't represent their employees in the slightest, they are heavy hitters representing the interests of the CEOs and board members. I'm sure those interests will often benefit employees with higher chances of remaining employed instead of the company going bankrupt, but that's about it.
(Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Thursday October 27 2016, @10:11PM
thanks to those pitching in to answer, and i will add one more factor here:
the so-called PUBLIC AIRWAVES (and similar 'monopolies' on using right-of-ways to run cable/FIOS/etc) were LEASED to the various broadcast korporations with a REAL expectation that they ALSO PROVIDE A PUBLIC SERVICE...
that is part of the reason why we have 'public svc announcements', c-spam, etc; THAT is *part* of the pitiful end of the deal we get for letting them make zillions off of OUR AIRWAVES...
i don't think it is asking too much to have a certain amount/blocks of free airtime for candidates every 2-4 years, do you ? ? ?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 27 2016, @06:08PM
2. enact instant runoff/ranked choice voting methods
How would you run this? Electronic voting (with their known potential for being disrupted or hacked)? Paper ballots, in which case what army of people would you employ counting ballots and ensuring nobody was engaging in fraud. Counting first-past-the-post is difficult, but a known process and easy to audit. Instant run-off is literally exponentially more difficult.
If you want you can count by hand: from Instant-runoff_voting#Counting_logistics [wikipedia.org]:
Most IRV elections historically have been tallied by hand, including in elections to Australia's House of Representatives and most state governments. In the modern era, voting equipment can be used to administer the count either partially or fully.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday October 27 2016, @11:41PM
I don't know what Florida is doing for election this year, but I do remember some hanging chad. Apparently, an extremely poor method of voting helped to lead to a very narrow race, and both parties wanted to take advantage of any doubt. The R candidate won that election because he did and end run on the Supreme Court, as I recall.
As for transparency - well - there is no paper trail. Whoever manages to tamper with one state or more, without getting caught in the act, wins. No paper trail. No accountability, ultimately. All that can be said for certain, in the event of a recount situation, is that x number of votes were cast from this machine, and the machine recorded y as R votes, and z as D votes, with aa number of third party votes. That is ALL the "transparency" possible without a physical paper trail of ballots cast.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 28 2016, @12:55AM
an extremely poor method of voting helped to lead to a very narrow race [in Florida]
A major element that you didn't mention was the confusing "butterfly ballot".
The Blues -could- have objected to that and a bunch of lawyers whom I have heard on the subject say the Blues would have prevailed in court.
The dumb bastards didn't bother to.
The R candidate won that election because he did and end run on the Supreme Court
"The President Select".
It was an unconstitutional coup d'etat.
The Constitution specifies how the process is supposed to go and that isn't any part of it.
...and I especially like how Gore conceded on election night then took back his concession.
Caspar Milquetoast.
Even better than that was when he pissed and moaned about Nader "stealing" his votes--when Gore didn't even carry his own state of Tennessee.
without a physical paper trail
Yup. That sucks.
This guy is a fanatic on the subject: Brad Friedman [google.com]
...and you're both correct.
hanging chad
Yup. Even the hole-punching gadgets are absolutely unnecessary.
Canada gives folks a paper ballot and a marker.
They count them by hand and it all Just Works(tm).
We disagree so often that it's refreshing when we totally agree.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday October 28 2016, @04:48AM
I have a weird feeling he may have had a partial change of heart over the last couple of months. Unlike some of the real no-hopers (Kyuubey, you still here, ya weaselly little bastid?) he never struck me as completely unreasonable. Whatever's going on I hope it continues.
*stands by waiting for the basket of deplorables to swoop in and make this all about them*
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 28 2016, @07:36AM
I don't think that's it.
We just happened to hit a subject where the logic is blindingly obvious.
When you go to a sporting event, you want the match to show who is the better contestant on that day--starting with the old level playing field.
...and elections are more important than any ball game.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday October 27 2016, @11:48PM
I'll tackle number 2:
Counting first-past-the-post is difficult, but a known process and easy to audit. Instant run-off is literally exponentially more difficult.
Why not just do what Australia does? They've had preferential voting since 1918 and it seems to work OK.
(Score: 2) by dry on Friday October 28 2016, @12:58AM
Australian elections, along with most of the world, have much simpler elections. In an election you vote for 1 or possibly 2 representatives. I assume that Australia is like Canada, where there is a Federal election and a separate Provincial/State election and also separate municipal elections.
One of the weird things about the American election procedure is that they vote for everything at once, so you get huge ballots with everything from President down to dogcatcher on the same ballot. This also encourages voting along party lines.
In Canada, often the Provincial parties don't even exist at the Federal level as well as the opposite. As well many municipalities don't even have parties. Not sure about Australia but it is probably similar.
Anyways, when I vote in most Canadian elections (not municipal), there is only one question, who my representative will be. Government is formed by whoever has control of Parliament and if needed, there is another election.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Friday October 28 2016, @01:24AM
I have just voted in my Local body Elections, which is a combination of First-past-the-post, single transferable and mixed member voting. I voted for (something like) 30 candidates in about 8 different races.
Counting was completed over the weekend.
The US could easily change their electoral system, but why would the incumbents get rid of their major advantage?
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Friday October 28 2016, @03:07AM
Mostly correct. I'm Australian:
(Score: 2) by dry on Friday October 28 2016, @04:36AM
Thanks for clarifying. I obviously made a few assumptions which were wrong.
Here in Canada, the present government has promised to get rid of the current first past the post system. With what remains to be seen. My Province had a referendum on changing the voting but it failed with like 59% in favour
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @01:26AM
That's not exactly true.
Aussies are required to show up at the polls and sign in.
At that point, am Aussie can deface his ballot with scribbles or rip his ballot into little bits and hand it back.
Actual voting is not required.
...and the fine for not showing up is like $25.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]