Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ross Perot Has Died

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 222 posts

Re: Ross Perot Has Died

#81

Post by erikpukinskis »

davidw wrote: post #70
sampo wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You want third parties, you need ranked choice voting or something similar. Ranked choice or similar would only give you an occasional third party win here and there, in some small number of electoral districts. It will not give you serious and viable third parties with long living organizations. What you'd need is, proportional voting for the House. Electoral districts the size of at least 10 House representatives…

I lived in Italy for a number of years and am not enamored of proportional systems for several reasons: * Small parties sometimes have disproportionate power in coalitions. * Coalitions tend to not be real stable, leading to unstable governments that can't get much done (ok, for some this is a feature, but for some things, I think it isn't). * People matter, but with a proportional system, the party picks the candida…

Proportional is different from ranked choice.

Ranked choice means you give your #1, #2, #3 pick etc. Then if your #1 loses, your vote goes to your #2. It prevents these "A vote for [minority candidate] is a vote for [enemy candidate]" situations.

Proportional means each party can elect a number of representatives proportional to the number of votes the party got.

They both empower third party candidates, but in a different way.

Re: Ross Perot Has Died

#82

Post by BuckRogers »

espeed wrote: post #60
davidw wrote: post #25

> ran into the establishment What he ran into was the inevitable math of a first past the post electoral system. You want third parties, you need ranked choice voting or something similar. Even if you're fine with the main parties, RCV is probably better in terms of electing who most people want. You could argue that Bush senior might have won with it if the Perot voters ranked 1) Perot 2) Bush. Bush junior might hav…

> You want third parties, you need ranked choice voting or something similar. Arrow's Impossibility Theorem : "When voters have three or more distinct alternatives (options), no ranked voting electoral system can convert the ranked preferences of individuals into a community-wide (complete and transitive) ranking while also meeting a specified set of criteria: unrestricted domain, non-dictatorship, Pareto efficiency,…

Perfect is the enemy of better.

Re: Ross Perot Has Died

#84

Post by davidw »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #81
davidw wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I lived in Italy for a number of years and am not enamored of proportional systems for several reasons: * Small parties sometimes have disproportionate power in coalitions. * Coalitions tend to not be real stable, leading to unstable governments that can't get much done (ok, for some this is a feature, but for some things, I think it isn't). * People matter, but with a proportional system, the party picks the candida…

Proportional is different from ranked choice. Ranked choice means you give your #1, #2, #3 pick etc. Then if your #1 loses, your vote goes to your #2. It prevents these "A vote for [minority candidate] is a vote for [enemy candidate] " situations. Proportional means each party can elect a number of representatives proportional to the number of votes the party got. They both empower third party candidates, but in a di…

I was responding to someone advocating proportional as better than RCV with my opinions about proportional voting.

Re: Ross Perot Has Died

#86

Post by SubiculumCode »

I believe I was around 18 when I heard of Ross Perot. At the time I had been impressed by the charts and no-nonsense approach, although now I realize I could not have judged their content with any actual knowledge. As I know a lot more about the world now, about debt, fiat currencies, and inflation, etc, and how charts can be constructed to not represent reality but one's agenda, beliefs, or misconceptions, I wonder now the extent to which Ross Perot's charts and message were insightful, or merely propagated myths and value-choices. Were his charts deficit hawk debt clocks and scare tactics, or were there real insights that reflected reality? I do not remember now because I did not understand them then. Anyone on HN have an opinion?

Re: Ross Perot Has Died

#87

Post by cat199 »

sampo wrote: post #74
munk-a wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ranked voting actually does enable third party candidate wins (assuming they can garner sufficient public support) with ranked choice voting the stigma of voting third party is removed and people can safely vote primarily for who they want instead of primarily voting strategically.

Where does it work? Australia has single-representative voting districts with instant-runoff voting, and they seem to have something that looks to me being close to a two-party system in practice. I admit, I didn't browse though all possible countries, so perhaps you know a better example? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Representatives_(Aust...

agree - voting system is only 1/2 of the pie - the other piece being the actual governmental structure.. when parties not candidates are voted for, and coalitions have to be formed, the need to heavily fund 'magical individuals' is less, and the need to compromise between parties and meet people directly on their own terms increases..

Re: Ross Perot Has Died

#88

Post by spork12 »

nsxwolf wrote: post #59
protomyth wrote: post #20

You can call him "goofy", but he was anything but. I got to watch him give a speech in Fargo during the 92 campaign and it was amazing. At the time, I got into the habit of reading each candidates "book" they put out during the election. His was short, to the point, and very specific on what needed fixing. He was a serious man that ran into the establishment and got hammered.

He was a nicer Donald Trump.

Ya, he really was. Probably too nice for politics like Ron Paul.

Re: Ross Perot Has Died

#89

Post by akhilcacharya »

madengr wrote: post #42
defen wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't he also "disappear" (from the public eye) during a crucial point in the campaign? My memory of this is hazy as I was only 12 at the time, but I recall my father being interested in his candidacy, but then around July or August he withdrew from the campaign. Then re-entered in September or October, so he came across as "flaky".

He talked about a conspiracy by the Republicans to ruin his daughters wedding. I thought he was crazy at the time, but now I believe him. I remember his hour long presentations with the flip charts of how things were screwed up. Too bad he didn’t win. Instead we got the scumbag Clintons.

Bill Clinton left office with a 60+% approval rating, higher than Reagan when he left. Bill won both elections with 370+ electoral votes. I think the American people were mostly pleased.

Re: Ross Perot Has Died

#90

Post by michaelmrose »

protomyth wrote: post #65
nothrabannosir wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FPTP is one of the most efficient and fundamental enemies of democracy, plaguing the USA. Everyone agrees partisanship is bad, people looooove a “bipartisan” bill, but FPTP mathematically converges on a two party system, always. It fuels tribalism and us-vs-them mentality like nothing else and perpetuates a political aristocracy through perverse incentives and hamstrung competition. To see this in effect, consider th…

The US is not, and has never been, a democracy. The US is a republic where there is a balance between the people, states, and federal. Tribalism is the nature of humans, its how we got this far. Heck, we pack bond with non-humans and even mechanical things. Fancy voting will not change that. FPTP is here in the US to stay, because there would be chaos with the other voting systems and the accusations of rigging would…

> FPTP is here in the US to stay, because there would be chaos with the other voting systems and the accusations of rigging would be rampant.

FPTP is probably here to stay because of pure inertia. The rest of the claims need support.

Post reply on HN