
Why American Elections are Flawed, and How to Fix Them - Dowwie
https://research.hks.harvard.edu/publications/workingpapers/citation.aspx?PubId=11349&type=WPN
======
MichaelApproved
Maine has "Ranked Choice Voting Initiative" (Question 5) on the ballot this
election. If their citizens vote for it, they'll be able to cast first, second
and third choice ballots.

In theory, that should prevent the 3rd party spoiler effect from happening
while allowing them to vote their conscious.

In the last two election cycles, they split the "left" vote and allowed a far
right governor to get elected.

With Ranked Choice, you get to pick your first choice. If that person didn't
get enough votes, your second choice will have your vote instead.

I think they're the first one in the country to do this. I hope they enact
this and we can watch the States truly be laboratories for election
improvements.

~~~
JohnStrange
I'd recommend Approval Voting, it has fairly good properties from the
perspective of Social Choice.

~~~
losvedir
I also prefer Approval Voting (although if it were an approval vote, I would
approve of both Approval Voting and Ranked Choice, heh).

One question to ask yourself to figure out which system you like better is
what the outcome should be of this election:

Candidate 1 is loved by 55% of the population and despised by 45%. Candidate 2
is loved by 45% of the population and despised by 55%. Candidate 3 is
tolerated by 85%.

Approval Voting would choose Candidate 3. IRV would choose Candidate 1. Who
"should" be elected?

~~~
johnsonav
Under approval voting, wouldn't the people who love candidate 1 realize that
they should vote strategically, and not approve of candidate 3 on their
ballots, causing candidate 1 to win this election?

~~~
ClayShentrup
[http://scorevoting.net/RVstrat6.html](http://scorevoting.net/RVstrat6.html)

------
ludicast
What do you folks make of this:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDc8PVCvfKs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDc8PVCvfKs)

Against: O'Keefe is not a perfect journalist, as agenda-driven as anyone
anywhere

For: These people were on the payroll, fired right after it happened, and Bob
Creamer met with Obama 300 times.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/the_donald](https://www.reddit.com/r/the_donald) has
done a great job "following the money" even if they are massively biased.

My vote is still up for grabs (tonight's debate might settle it), but a YUGE
part of me does want to see an impartial investigation. The kind we won't get
with Comey/Clinton/Lynch.

Side note - very good PR of them to drop the video right after Obama
criticized Trump for his rigging claims.

~~~
evgen
Start with [http://www.snopes.com/2016/10/18/project-veritas-election-
vi...](http://www.snopes.com/2016/10/18/project-veritas-election-videos/) and
go from there regarding the validity of these videos. tl;dr is that the
'reporter' in this case has a history of making misleading videos by
collecting out of context quotes and then splicing in different video segments
that make these out of context ones seem sinister.

~~~
matwood
Given that people have already been fired/quit and others are distancing there
must be some truth to these videos. Is there any link attacking the validity
of the video itself and not the source?

~~~
evgen
There does not have to be truth for people to decide to fall upon their swords
to avoid any suggestion of a scandal. Given how apparently gullible people are
the simple fact is that whether it is true or not does not matter, nor does
the actual context in which the conversations occurred. If you worked for a
campaign and I had a bar conversation with you about how voting fraud might
happen and then only saved/broadcasted the part after your initial "we do
everything we can to prevent it, but if you were to ask me how it could happen
given existing safeguards then..." bit of the conversation then I would expect
to read about you getting fired or quitting the next day as well.

To examine the validity of the video we would actually need all of it, but
that is not the point for O'Keefe. His goal is to maintain his street cred
with the trumpistas and ratfucking part of the community that might keep
paying him after having fallen so far with his last few failed attempts. Given
the source and this source's history of manipulating videotaped conversations
on multiple occasions to create a narrative that does not match what actually
happened, it is smarter to start assuming the videos are a lie and asking for
proof that this is not another case of misleading edits. Show me the whole
tape or I will assume O'Keefe is telling lies again.

------
misja111
Unfortunately, the ones that have to decide whether to implement the
suggestions in this report, are the same people that were put into power by
the failing mechanisms behind the US' election system. Their hands are tied by
the powerful lobbies that have sponsored their campaigns.

~~~
Svip
Would it not be possible to start gradually? I am just speculating a plan
here, but start by implementing some of these suggestions that can be applied
on a state level in some minor states first. It may be easier to lobby those
local politicians for a change of rule.

A successful 'trial' (one might even be able to convince them by saying it's
going to be a trial at first) might convince other state politicians and/or
people elsewhere to implement similar systems in their own state.

Disclaimer: I am Danish and Denmark apparently ranks top in their PEI index.

~~~
rschuetzler
I think that's a big part of what needs to happen. Make these changes at the
state and local level, and eventually we might see some diversity at those
levels. Then we'll be able to have a conversation on the national level. Like
the original comment here says, Democrats and Republicans have no incentive to
push for this because they benefit from the First-Past-the-Post voting we
currently have.

------
pjc50
From the abstract:

> deepening party polarization over electoral procedures, the vulnerability of
> electronic records to hacking, and the impact of deregulating campaign
> spending, compounding the lack of professional standards of electoral
> management.

All of these things people have rightly been complaining about for years. It
would be good to get some recognition of them.

> Section 4 considers pragmatic reforms designed to strengthen U.S. electoral
> laws and procedures, recommending expanding secure and convenient
> registration and balloting facilities, [...] and strengthening impartial
> dispute resolution mechanisms.

.. but here we hit the problem: too many Americans no longer really believe in
"impartiality". This is the guiding theme of the Trump campaign, that anyone
who disagrees with them is a lying partisan.

Not to mention that the Republican party have spent years working against
"convenient registration", instead preferring partisan disenfranchisement
through voter ID and similar measures.

~~~
3princip
As a European I don't understand how requiring an ID to vote is
disenfranchising voters? It just stinks of voter fraud, and in light of the
latest Project Veritas videos I can only conclude that the establishment
parties and democrats in this case are engaged in massive electoral fraud and
fight these initiatives not on principle but to maintain mechanisms by which
they can influence the result.

It's just weird, especially since the US has been very vocal in judging others
with regards to their electoral processes. Pot calling the kettle black it
seems.

~~~
evgen
If you believe the project veritas videos you should look harder at the source
and his history of creating misleading videos. The problem is that in the US
it is quite possible to get along just fine without a government-issued ID;
mandating such ID can be considered a barrier to voting since it is actually
inconvenient to get such an ID in the first place. Your assumption that there
is massive electoral fraud in the US is simply incorrect and in fact there is
far more voter fraud across Europe than there is in the US. Most voting in the
US occurs in-person, and in such cases voter fraud is incredibly rare (as in
less than 100 known cases over billions of ballots cast.)

~~~
3princip
You mean, if I believe my own eyes and ears rather than someone insulting me
on the internet? You're funny.

If someone can't be bothered to obtain an ID to vote, possibly they shouldn't
be voting at all. Civic responsibility is not an inconvenience, it's what
keeps civilization running. Taking a few moments out of your daily routine to
be informed and choose your government is the least one should expect.

~~~
evgen
_If someone can 't be bothered to obtain an ID to vote, possibly they
shouldn't be voting at all._

And when those people without IDs happen to be poor and minority voters, so
much the better, right? Getting a government ID is not 'taking a few moments
out of your daily routine', or we would not be having this conversation. How
about you ask an American how fast and easy it is for them to just waltz in
the the DMV and walk out a few minutes later with their shiny new ID card.
State IDs are done by the same agency, and a lot of those poor people have one
or two jobs they are working where taking an entire day to get an ID could
cost them serious money or their job itself.

~~~
squozzer
I think in the US you have to have an ID to get a job. Last time I looked at
an I-9, it required 1) proof of citizenship or right to work (GC); 2) proof of
identity.

~~~
evgen
If you take a look at the actual documents which are required for an I-9, they
are a lot more flexible than what are required by most of the voter ID laws
the courts are throwing out left and right. The proof of citizenship can be a
birth certificate or a social security card, while the proof of identity can
be a school ID, a local government ID card or a military ID. If you started
your job before 1986 you never needed to provide the information, nor would
you if you were a retiree or on disability.

------
zzzeek
was hoping to see some mention of the "third party problem", that is, voters
can't express their preference for a so-called "alternate" candidate without
taking votes away from their second preferred choice. IMO allowing some form
of ranked voting, while this is completely politically untenable in the near
future, should at least be part of the discussion. Because it also clarifies
how without such a system (given the electoral college system in place as
well, which I think is a good thing), voting for an "alternate" candidate
really does help the opponent of your second choice.

~~~
Dowwie
Hey Zzzeek! Ranked choice is on the ballot for Maine voters next month. Maybe
more states will adopt it in the future..

------
Calcite
Direct PDF link:
[https://research.hks.harvard.edu/publications/getFile.aspx?I...](https://research.hks.harvard.edu/publications/getFile.aspx?Id=1431)

------
Hermel
I find the American rule of having one representative per district flawed, as
it gives an unfair advantage to large parties. In the Swiss system, I can cast
20 votes if my state has 20 representatives. This allows a party who get 5% of
the votes to win a seat. Also, voters are free to vote across party lines as
they like, but one can vote at most twice for the same candidate. That allows
to influence the ranking of candidates within parties, which is for example
not possible in Germany, where the voters can only choose between pre-arranged
lists provided by the parties. The Swiss voting system allows for much more
elaborate voting strategies than any other. I, for example, usually start with
the list of my preferred party and then remove all lawyers and career
politicians, because I think they are over-represented. I wonder why there
aren't many countries that copy the Swiss system of electing the parliament.
Maybe because it gives more power to the voters than typical politicians feel
comfortable with?

------
losteverything
Ok. I read the entire pdf.

My take.

Academia affords one to spend a lifetime on an issue. Author had '99 citing.
If your thing is elections then you have to write about this.

Only a revolt by the people will change the election process significantly -
or Lawmakers vote ++ if they think they will get more votes/representation. I
do not believe this report or 100 others will impact elected officials. Sure,
having a leading university will get quotes but not action.

I do not believe our system is in peril. I do not believe our system needs to
be fixed. I do not believe this election is rigged. I trust the outcome.

I do hope there are more "normal" people in the political pipeline in future
years so our choices can be better.

Life has so many choices. The choice to vote for president is only one.

~~~
snarf21
I agree with your one comment. Only true revolt will cause a change. People
don't really care in the end. As long as they have an iPhone and Netflix and a
50" Samsung, who really cares? Everyone complains a little but there is no
real movement. As bad as things are (and could get), the fact is that they are
objectively pretty freaking great.

------
phkahler
For all offices except the president, I believe all public
advertising/campaigning should be restricted to people who reside in the
state. No PACs, no national parties, no outside financing. The candidates are
supposed to represent the people of their state, to take money or other
influence from anyone else is inappropriate. I suppose this could be
implemented at the state level.

------
angry-hacker
I would be surprised if anyone honestly believe they are are honest.

It all depends on your narrative if you accept it or not.

------
thex10
Link to the author's website for the Electoral Integrity Project:
[https://sites.google.com/site/electoralintegrityproject4/](https://sites.google.com/site/electoralintegrityproject4/)

It is an 'independent academic study.' What I want to know is, have these
people been lobbying Congress to implement their suggested changes at all?

------
sumosudo
I could have a hundred fast foods for breakfast and unlimited cereal
selections for brinner and you give me two presidential candidates.. ?!

~~~
Kristine1975
It's the illusion of choice: Choice where it doesn't matter, no choice where
it does.

------
d--b
it's not a very smart move to publish this right before the election. "Even
Harvard says the election is rigged."

~~~
pixl97
But Obama says the elections are not rigged, how can this be?

~~~
e1g
I just recently heard of Obama's position you're referring to, and I had a
different interpretation.

"Rigged" means a coordinated and malicious manipulation - this is something
that before Trump no one had claimed (the GOP or otherwise). "Flawed", or even
"fraud", is more subtle - for example, an electoral administrator miscounting
votes due to strange patriotism, lack of training, indifference, or excessive
partisanship.

I saw Obama's point as being rooted in "Never ascribe to malice that which can
be explained by incompetence", and that actually rigging the election in the
US (and getting away with it) is a lot more complex than it seems on surface.
Sort of like faking the moon landing.

~~~
TheGirondin
>"Rigged" means a coordinated and malicious manipulation - this is something
that before Trump no one had claimed (the GOP or otherwise).

There were (and still are) wide spread claims that Republicans outright stole
the results of the 2004 election in Ohio, going all the way to John Kerry
himself.

[http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/12/21/negotiating-
the...](http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/12/21/negotiating-the-
whirlwind)

Refusing to accept election losses has been a hallmark of Democrats in the
last 20 years. They refuse to accept the 2000 election, said that Republicans
stole the state of OH in 2004, and even now claim that the current Republican
majorities in both the House and Senate are the result of "gerrymandering."

