Changes to Elections Needed; Instant ...
Joker

Gainesboro, TN

#61 Nov 18, 2012
Green Hornet 007 wrote:
<quoted text>
Again,wrong..Since it is state law,the state can come in and set the tax rate,and force the county to build.
Can't get blood out of a turnip!

They can set a tax rate whatever they want, doesn't mean they will get it.
Joker

Gainesboro, TN

#62 Nov 18, 2012
Green Hornet 007 wrote:
<quoted text>
Now,now Joker..I did on "many" occasions state that there was room in Nashville..I debated "betcha or gotcha" about it..I stated that I thought the daily rate there was around $75 a day..He stated it was somewhere near $65 a day.
Of course you did, I must have looked over it in the quotes I posted!

You don't know when you are lying or telling the truth. All of those quotes were NOT posts that you were debating with me! Hence when you said "he...". "He" is me you are referring to .... so obviously you weren't debating me in that post!

Go ahead and try to spin your way out of the lies that I caught you in, isn't going to work now nor will it work in the future! You can count on that! The PROOF are in the posts!

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#63 Nov 18, 2012
Joker wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course you did, I must have looked over it in the quotes I posted!
You don't know when you are lying or telling the truth. All of those quotes were NOT posts that you were debating with me! Hence when you said "he...". "He" is me you are referring to .... so obviously you weren't debating me in that post!
Go ahead and try to spin your way out of the lies that I caught you in, isn't going to work now nor will it work in the future! You can count on that! The PROOF are in the posts!
You are the King of Spin...Several posts that I have done stated that Nashville had room but it was more expensive and too far away...Sorry that you did not read them,but they are there..Too expensive and not viable..

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#64 Nov 18, 2012
Joker wrote:
<quoted text>
Can't get blood out of a turnip!
They can set a tax rate whatever they want, doesn't mean they will get it.
they will get it one way or the other..Just the way it is...Bottom line,I proved your statements wrong..There is a state law mandating a jail in every county..
Joker

Gainesboro, TN

#65 Nov 18, 2012
Green Hornet 007 wrote:
<quoted text>
they will get it one way or the other..Just the way it is...Bottom line,I proved your statements wrong..There is a state law mandating a jail in every county..
So you're saying they can get money I don't have? I'd like to see that!!

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#66 Nov 18, 2012
Joker wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're saying they can get money I don't have? I'd like to see that!!
Come on now,you know they can..It is either that or they sell your property...It is the law,every county "has" to have a jail in Tennessee..They have their ways...You forget,I am in favor of a "tent city"..Unfortunately,you can not do it in Tennessee..Get the state laws changed.Com plain to your state reps.
Joker

Gainesboro, TN

#67 Nov 18, 2012
Green Hornet 007 wrote:
<quoted text>
Come on now,you know they can..It is either that or they sell your property...It is the law,every county "has" to have a jail in Tennessee..They have their ways...You forget,I am in favor of a "tent city"..Unfortunately,you can not do it in Tennessee..Get the state laws changed.Com plain to your state reps.
I don't have any property, so they can't sell what I don't have. I'm sure that only about 30% of the people in the county actually own property so they will be left holding the bag. Oh well, sux to be them.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#68 Nov 18, 2012
Joker wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't have any property, so they can't sell what I don't have. I'm sure that only about 30% of the people in the county actually own property so they will be left holding the bag. Oh well, sux to be them.
If you rent,it could come back on you with a rent increase because the owners need to pay the tax bill.
fyi

Gainesboro, TN

#69 Nov 18, 2012
One sensible answer is to combine county governments, this can be done witin the passing of a public or private act. We have way too much government anyway. This would cut out alot of wasteful spending. Talk to Senator Yager about the possibility, or Rep Windle, two fine men that would know how this could be done. Dig in, make it a reality. I get so tired of people saying you HAVE to do something because it is the LAW, well change the doggone law, it can be done.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#70 Nov 18, 2012
fyi wrote:
One sensible answer is to combine county governments, this can be done witin the passing of a public or private act. We have way too much government anyway. This would cut out alot of wasteful spending. Talk to Senator Yager about the possibility, or Rep Windle, two fine men that would know how this could be done. Dig in, make it a reality. I get so tired of people saying you HAVE to do something because it is the LAW, well change the doggone law, it can be done.
They are both very fine men..I also agree that if the people of Fentress county wants change from state laws,they need to contact their reps..Can these changes happen? Yes,but very highly improbable..Politics will not allow those changes,but it is worth trying..I am not sure I am in favor of combining counties,but then again,I have not given it any thought or research..Have a great evening.
Dale Sheldon-Hess

Ashburn, VA

#71 Nov 20, 2012
Green Hornet 007 wrote:
<quoted text>
Does the issue get worse if 5 or 6 people run?
In general, yes.

If 3 candidates run, and each gets at least a quarter of the vote, there could be a spoiler.
If 4 candidates run, and each gets at least a fifth of the vote, there could be a spoiler.
Etc., etc..

But, while IRV isn't spoiler-proof, it is "clone" proof. In other words, if you add a new candidate, and every voter would rank them adjacent to the same existing candidate (or equivalently, no voter would rank any other candidate between them) then they won't be a spoiler.

This is another reason why IRV looks like should be a fair method... but actually isn't. When you're coming from a two-party-dominated set of experiences (and even third-party supporters fall in to this trap) you think of situations like "two left-leaning candidates and a right-leaning candidate run against each other and every voter likes either left-leaning candidates or right-leaning candidates". And yeah, if every left-leaning voter ranks both left-leaning candidates above the right-leaning one, and every right-leaning voter ranks the right-leaning candidate above both left-leaning ones, then there won't be any spoilers. But as long as even *one* voter ranks the right-leaning candidate between the two left-leaning ones, then you can run in to a spoiler situation.

I always am surprised by the number of people who advocate for IRV as a way to help third-parties, without even noticing that their unstated assumptions are that the two-party system holds absolute sway over every voter.
Dale Sheldon-Hess

Ashburn, VA

#72 Nov 20, 2012
Joker wrote:
Now, if it started out to be a 2 person race (Joker and JCC) where Joker was leading in the polls and then GH entered the race; and during voting GH took votes away from Joker and JCC got additional votes and the results wound up being (JCC 51, Joker 41, GH 8); then GH would most definitely be a SPOILER!
Okay, at least we're getting somewhere.(Although you're using a different set of numbers now, the principle is the same; I'm going to continue with the original example we used before though, for consistency's sake.)

So, IRV. Just Joker and JCC are running. You take a poll.

49 say Joker > JCC
51 say JCC > Joker

JCC is going to win the election. At this point, GH decides to run. You immediately vote.

9 of your voters, and 26 of JCC's, a total of 35, like GH best. So the actual vote looks like:

40: Joker > (someone else)
25: JCC > (someone else)
35: GH > (someone else)

So, by IRV, JCC is eliminated. His voter's 2nd preferences are split almost evenly; 13 for you, 12 for GH. So the final result is: Joker 53, GH 47. Joker wins.

Recap, under IRV:

If GH doesn't run, JCC wins.
If GH does run, Joker wins.

Whereas, had this been a plurality election:

If GH doesn't run, JCC wins.
If GH does run, Joker wins.

Identical results. So either BOTH of these situations are examples of spoilers, or NEITHER of these situations are examples of spoilers. Since you have already described the second situation as a spoiler, you must also accept the first as a spoiler.

IRV has spoilers.

(Is it pedantic to put a "Q.E.D." here?)

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#73 Nov 20, 2012
Dale Sheldon-Hess wrote:
<quoted text>
In general, yes.
If 3 candidates run, and each gets at least a quarter of the vote, there could be a spoiler.
If 4 candidates run, and each gets at least a fifth of the vote, there could be a spoiler.
Etc., etc..
But, while IRV isn't spoiler-proof, it is "clone" proof. In other words, if you add a new candidate, and every voter would rank them adjacent to the same existing candidate (or equivalently, no voter would rank any other candidate between them) then they won't be a spoiler.
This is another reason why IRV looks like should be a fair method... but actually isn't. When you're coming from a two-party-dominated set of experiences (and even third-party supporters fall in to this trap) you think of situations like "two left-leaning candidates and a right-leaning candidate run against each other and every voter likes either left-leaning candidates or right-leaning candidates". And yeah, if every left-leaning voter ranks both left-leaning candidates above the right-leaning one, and every right-leaning voter ranks the right-leaning candidate above both left-leaning ones, then there won't be any spoilers. But as long as even *one* voter ranks the right-leaning candidate between the two left-leaning ones, then you can run in to a spoiler situation.
I always am surprised by the number of people who advocate for IRV as a way to help third-parties, without even noticing that their unstated assumptions are that the two-party system holds absolute sway over every voter.
Our county elections do not have a party system..If 7 people want to run for county executive that will be fine..Keeping that in mind,if 7 people run for County Executive,and none are affiliated to any party,is the IRV accurate in that scenario or does it get worse with the more people running?
Dale Sheldon-Hess

Ashburn, VA

#74 Nov 20, 2012
Green Hornet 007 wrote:
<quoted text>
Our county elections do not have a party system..If 7 people want to run for county executive that will be fine..Keeping that in mind,if 7 people run for County Executive,and none are affiliated to any party,is the IRV accurate in that scenario or does it get worse with the more people running?
"Accurate" isn't a well-define term in this context. When people say "accurate", I assume what they mean to say is something like "likelihood that the highest net-utility candidate will be elected." (And I explain what I mean by THAT here: http://leastevil.blogspot.com/2010/05/what-do... )

Using that definition: No; IRV is not accurate. On average, it will be slightly more accurate than plurality, but any other alternate election method would be better still, and approval voting is both among the most-accurate and the most-simple methods.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#75 Nov 20, 2012
Dale Sheldon-Hess wrote:
<quoted text>
"Accurate" isn't a well-define term in this context. When people say "accurate", I assume what they mean to say is something like "likelihood that the highest net-utility candidate will be elected." (And I explain what I mean by THAT here: http://leastevil.blogspot.com/2010/05/what-do... )
Using that definition: No; IRV is not accurate. On average, it will be slightly more accurate than plurality, but any other alternate election method would be better still, and approval voting is both among the most-accurate and the most-simple methods.
In the past,hasn't IRV caused people not to vote,like some elderly,because it may be a bit confusing?Thanks for your input..Also with the type of elections we have,does more people running for a position cause IRV to be even less accurate? In other words,isn't IRV less accurate if 7 people run for the same position instead of 3 running?
Joker

Gainesboro, TN

#76 Nov 21, 2012
Green Hornet 007 wrote:
<quoted text>
In the past,hasn't IRV caused people not to vote,like some elderly,because it may be a bit confusing?Thanks for your input..Also with the type of elections we have,does more people running for a position cause IRV to be even less accurate? In other words,isn't IRV less accurate if 7 people run for the same position instead of 3 running?
Ha ha ha........Here he goes folks ..... trying to pull the old (pun intended) elderly, disabled etc people can't vote because it's too confusing ...... If they can vote on the machines we have now (even I have to do a double take to make sure I'm voting who for who I want to) with people listed up and down both sides with "vote for 1" or "vote for 3" without any issues .... then they could vote IRV without any issues whatsoever.

Obviously there would need to be some education on IRV (or whatever alternate version of instant runoff voting) we use because that would just be the smart thing to do. And the people working the polls would be there to help the voters with the machines, just as they do now.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#77 Nov 21, 2012
Joker wrote:
<quoted text>
Ha ha ha........Here he goes folks ..... trying to pull the old (pun intended) elderly, disabled etc people can't vote because it's too confusing ...... If they can vote on the machines we have now (even I have to do a double take to make sure I'm voting who for who I want to) with people listed up and down both sides with "vote for 1" or "vote for 3" without any issues .... then they could vote IRV without any issues whatsoever.
Obviously there would need to be some education on IRV (or whatever alternate version of instant runoff voting) we use because that would just be the smart thing to do. And the people working the polls would be there to help the voters with the machines, just as they do now.
But it is a fact..Even you stated that there would need to be some education on it...Even now there are people who are scared of computers,and does not like to mess with them..A new voting system would disenfranchise some people.Still am not in favor for any changes right now..We need to heal from this charter issue..There were people who had some of their friendships strained quite a bit..Let's heal.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#78 Nov 21, 2012
Dale Sheldon-Hess wrote:
<quoted text>
"Accurate" isn't a well-define term in this context. When people say "accurate", I assume what they mean to say is something like "likelihood that the highest net-utility candidate will be elected." (And I explain what I mean by THAT here: http://leastevil.blogspot.com/2010/05/what-do... )
Using that definition: No; IRV is not accurate. On average, it will be slightly more accurate than plurality, but any other alternate election method would be better still, and approval voting is both among the most-accurate and the most-simple methods.
Also are you aware of any studies that show people being disenfranchised in the elections because of changes in the voting system,like going to IRV??
Joker

Gainesboro, TN

#79 Nov 22, 2012
Green Hornet 007 wrote:
<quoted text>
Also are you aware of any studies that show people being disenfranchised in the elections because of changes in the voting system,like going to IRV??
This is Jamestown, TN and not L.A. California, New York or the like, I don't think too many people around here are going to be "disenfranchised" by an electronic voting machine....why? Because we use them already!

Obviously this isn't something that will be brought before the CE or CCs anytime soon because of the holidays, it's something rather new (and we all know people around here are afraid of new things), and someone will have to be the person to be the voice of the people and that person has not came forward yet.......... so the "healing" time will be given.

You seem to forget that one of the only reasons that I advocate for IRV is because we CANNOT have a traditional runoff election, if it wasn't for that, we wouldn't be debating this issue. But, since we cannot [have a traditional runoff] and are in need of change, we must explore other ways to get the change we need that will meet or exceed what we need.
Joker

Gainesboro, TN

#80 Nov 22, 2012
Green Hornet 007 wrote:
<quoted text>
But it is a fact..Even you stated that there would need to be some education on it...Even now there are people who are scared of computers,and does not like to mess with them........
Scared of computers and do not like to mess with them??!?! REALLY?!? Dude, you gotta do better than that!

We use electronic voting machines now, your statements hold NO water!

If they were so afraid of computers and would not mess with them, they would NOT be voting now!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Grimsley Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Unpopular Opinion: Women shouldn't be preachers. 10 min johnson1 57
Officer Arrested DUI 56 min Tvscreen 8
Any information on house fire. 6 hr funny 13
County executiive (Aug '15) 6 hr HandyMann56 39
Dragon Football Average At Best 9 hr What- me worry 7
Driving drunk 9 hr Jimmy 2
Lilly Crisp Wed Sam 1

Grimsley Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Grimsley Mortgages