What would happen if we use Alternative Vote Plus as our future electoral system?
457470
might get a honest election ?
748374
electronic voting machines are a bad idea.  \n\npeople need to think this through.\n\ncases of fraud will be more difficult to track, and may be impossible to track.  and some cases of fraud with e-voting may go completely undetected.  \n\nhttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/30/tech/main590725.shtml \nhttp://www.wanttoknow.info/051221votingmachineshacked\nhttp://www.forbes.com/markets/bonds/newswire/2003/07/24/rtr1037484.html
719943
We are not a Democracy. We are a representative republic. It would lead to chaos if everything that was decided went up to vote. This way you vote the representative in and if the decisions are bad ones you vote them back out. The system has a lot of checks and balances so things that are controversial can't be done quickly.
94069
The two party system is as old as the country itself.  actually, it is patterened after the house of commons in merry ole England.  If you think our party system is volitile, you should see and hear the antics used over there.  the two party system works as well as any other, probably better, given its longevity. I vote that we leave it alone except for one factor, that is popular vote.  I believe that we should still base our outcomes on the popular vote of this country.  In this way, the people have truly spoken! By the way, the hell with abroad.  We owe no other nation, or group of people, an explanation as to the domestic decisions of this country.
150281
So what happens if Mr. Neither wins the election \nFind a more constructive way to change the world!\nIt would be better if you just stayed home!!\nWaist of TAXPAYER $$\nMoron
861246
Yes it is possible. If no one gets the required electorial votes to win president but does have "the most" they could still lose the election once it enters the House of Representatives. This is very unlikely in our two party system but if we had a strong third party it is very possible.
771970
No, not as long as we are using Diebold voting machines.  (Diebold gives money to Republicans).  Democracy is dead.  Wake up and smell the coffee of the kingdom of George W. Bush...and his gay, merry, pranksters.
953743
You can scatter your votes, I usually do.  I vote by issue, being middle class, and not a globalist.  We don't have a party of our own.   \n\nYet.
789942
It probably depends on where you are. In Canada we can register right at the poles on election night.
236691
Of course. It would be a good choice nowadays too, considering the fact the US has been taken over completely. There is no longer a republic - The voting system is entirely a fraud. The US is killing thousands of innocents all over the world. The US is stealing the resources of innocent nations. The US is responsible for much more. The civil war happend for much less.
1016604
Everyone would have to have a unique phone number which has been registered with the election commission. Then there would have to be a separate number to call for each electoral precinct to take into account local elections as well as the state wide and federal elections.\n\nPeople have a hard enough time trying to decipher written ballots. Imagine only being able to listen to the ballot being read over the phone and determining which number belongs to which candidate.\n\nThen there is the concern of how many phone calls need to be made collectively by the voters and the length of time it will take each voter to complete the ballot. Phone lines will be tied up indefinitely. At best there will be busy signals, at worst the telephone switching systems will be taxed to the point of crashing and other business and personal calls will not be able to complete. Imagine how difficult it is to get through when voting for your favorite American Idol contestant or to reach Home Shopping Network to buy that new collectible Barbie Doll and then imagine that happening all day.\n\nVoting in person, by email or internet are the only viable ways, and the last 2 are hard to control to ensure that the ballot box has not been stuffed.
84908
It's not likely for a couple of reasons.  First, campaign finance laws rig the system in favor of Demopublicans and Republicrats.  Second, if an issue championed by a small, independent party becomes big enough, one of the two major parties will take it over as their own.\nMore Americans should register as Independents - that's the American way to vote!
587238
Well it would depend on the Constitution of the particular country.  But as an example the United States and Great Britain both have bi-cameral legistative systems.
124688
This is a good subject I would love to see some debate on.  My first thought is we should elimnate electoral vote and go with the majority vote. But that would mean the east and west coast would pretty much decide who/what gets elected.  With the elctoral vote every state has a say.  Id love to see some answers on this question.
1054599
I do. Electronic voting is a crock.  It should be illegal.  There is no way to truly verify that votes are genuinely counted without a paper backup.  Anything can happen in that computer.  And computers can be easily hacked.  Officials who install electronic voting should be sacked.
75106
In voting systems, tactical voting (or strategic voting) occurs when a voter misrepresents his or her sincere preferences in order to gain a more favorable outcome.\n\nAlthough it is desirable for a democratic system to encourage voters to express sincere preferences, it has been shown by the Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem that any voting method which is completely strategy-free must be either dictatorial or nondeterministic (that is, might not select the same outcome every time it is applied to the same set of ballots). For instance, the random ballot voting method, which randomly selects the ballot of a single voter and uses this to determine the outcome, is strategy-free, but may result in different choices being selected if applied multiple times to the same set of ballots.\n\nTypes of tactical voting\n(Compromising, Burying & Push-Over)\n\nCompromising (sometimes "useful vote") is a type of tactical voting in which a voter insincerely ranks an alternative higher in the hope of getting it elected. For example, in the first-past-the-post election, a voter may vote for an option they perceive as having a greater chance of winning over an option they prefer (e.g., a left-wing voter voting for a popular moderate candidate over an unpopular leftist candidate, or in order to help defeat a strong right-wing candidate.) Duverger's law suggests that, for this reason, first-past-the-post election systems will lead to two-party systems in most cases. \n\nBurying is a type of tactical voting in which a voter insincerely ranks an alternative lower in the hopes of defeating it. For example, in the Borda count or in a Condorcet method, a voter may insincerely rank a perceived strong alternative last in order to help their preferred alternative beat it.\n\nPush-over is a type of tactical voting in which a voter ranks a perceived weak alternative higher, but not in the hopes of getting it elected. This primarily occurs in runoff voting when a voter already believes that his favored candidate will make it to the next round - the voter then ranks an unpreferred, but easily beatable, candidate higher so that his preferred candidate can win later.
154386
I agree with you.  We should create a system of computer voting on every issue.  The security technology exists (smart id cards etc.) to make it secure and verifiable and auditable.\nOpen Source would have to be used and strict rules would have to be used for how it is implemented and hosted, but I think it's possible, and I think it's a good idea.\n\nThis way we could get rid of (ban?) political parties, because the more independently people consider their votes the better the system will work.\n\nIt could be implemented step by step, initially just for opinion polling.