Jump to content

Dem Quadratic Vote: Pre-Debate

tantric superman

By tantric superman
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

tantric superman

tantric superman 4667

Posted
Posted

You have 25 quadratic credits.  Your votes for each candidate squared have to equal to 25.  Therefore, you can give five votes to Biden and you are done.  Or you can give 4 to Biden and 3 to Sanders (4 squared plus 3 squared = 25).  Or 2 votes for each of six candidates and 1 vote for one more (2 squared plus 2 squared plus 2 squared plus 2 squared plus 2 squared plus 2 squared plus 1 squared = 25).

Honor system, check you math.

To me, the safest way to beat Trump is for states to impose some kind of quadratic or instant runoff methodology for the primaries to maximize the "acceptability" and broad appeal of the top vote getter in the general election.  This method would do it.

Just cut and paste and add your votes to the current total:

Michael Bennet (D) 

Joe Biden (D)

Bill de Blasio (D)

Cory Booker (D) 2

Steve Bullock (D)

Pete Buttigieg (D) 3

Julián Castro (D)

John Delaney (D)

Tulsi Gabbard (D)

Kirsten Gillibrand (D)

Mike Gravel (D)

Kamala Harris (D)

John Hickenlooper (D)

Jay Inslee (D) 2

Amy Klobuchar (D) 2

Wayne Messam (D)

Seth Moulton (D)

Beto O'Rourke (D)

Tim Ryan (D)

Bernie Sanders (D)

Eric Swalwell (D)

Elizabeth Warren (D) 2

Marianne Williamson (D)

Andrew Yang (D)

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85104

Posted
Posted

Michael Bennet (D) 

Joe Biden (D) 1

Bill de Blasio (D)

Cory Booker (D) 2

Steve Bullock (D)

Pete Buttigieg (D) 3 + 2

Julián Castro (D)

John Delaney (D)

Tulsi Gabbard (D)

Kirsten Gillibrand (D)

Mike Gravel (D)

Kamala Harris (D) 2

John Hickenlooper (D)

Jay Inslee (D) 2

Amy Klobuchar (D) 2

Wayne Messam (D)

Seth Moulton (D)

Beto O'Rourke (D)

Tim Ryan (D)

Bernie Sanders (D)

Eric Swalwell (D)

Elizabeth Warren (D) 2 + 4

Marianne Williamson (D)

Andrew Yang (D)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry T. Spider

Larry T. Spider 1740

Posted
Posted

Michael Bennet (D) 

Joe Biden (D) 1

Bill de Blasio (D)

Cory Booker (D) 2

Steve Bullock (D)

Pete Buttigieg (D) 3 + 2

Julián Castro (D)

John Delaney (D)

Tulsi Gabbard (D)

Kirsten Gillibrand (D)

Mike Gravel (D)

Kamala Harris (D) 2

John Hickenlooper (D)

Jay Inslee (D) 2

Amy Klobuchar (D) 2

Wayne Messam (D)

 Seth Moulton (D)

Beto O'Rourke (D) 5

Tim Ryan (D)

Bernie Sanders (D)

Eric Swalwell (D)

Elizabeth Warren (D) 2 + 4

Marianne Williamson (D)

Andrew Yang (D)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13132

Posted
Posted

While I think the idea of quadratic equation voting is bad (it completely destroys the concept of "1 man, 1 vote"), I think this is a lot of fun played out here specifically so we can see just how out-of-step we can get from the mainstream national polling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tantric superman

tantric superman 4667

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Current Vote 5:21 PM 19.6.18

 

Michael Bennet (D) 

Joe Biden (D) 1

Bill de Blasio (D)

Cory Booker (D) 2

Steve Bullock (D)

Pete Buttigieg (D) 5

Julián Castro (D)

John Delaney (D)

Tulsi Gabbard (D)

Kirsten Gillibrand (D)

Mike Gravel (D)

Kamala Harris (D) 2

John Hickenlooper (D)

Jay Inslee (D) 2

Amy Klobuchar (D) 2

Wayne Messam (D)

 Seth Moulton (D)

Beto O'Rourke (D) 5

Tim Ryan (D)

Bernie Sanders (D)

Eric Swalwell (D)

Elizabeth Warren (D) 6

Marianne Williamson (D)

Andrew Yang (D)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tantric superman

tantric superman 4667

Posted
  • Author
Posted

C'mon you bastards.  Don't let this sink like my Bill Weld thread.  Vote. 

http://www.math.com/students/calculators/source/square-root.htm

 

Current standings:

 

Elizabeth Warren (D) 6

Pete Buttigieg (D) 5

Beto O'Rourke (D) 5

Cory Booker (D) 2

Kamala Harris (D) 2

Jay Inslee (D) 2

Amy Klobuchar (D) 2

Joe Biden (D) 1

 

(I think its clear that Sanders is out of the picture and that the Mexicans are sticking with Beto.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
horncyclist

horncyclist 1386

Posted
Posted (edited)

I think I did this right:

Michael Bennet (D) 

Joe Biden (D) 1

Bill de Blasio (D)

Cory Booker (D) 2

Steve Bullock (D)

Pete Buttigieg (D) 5

Julián Castro (D) + 2 = 2

John Delaney (D)

Tulsi Gabbard (D)

Kirsten Gillibrand (D)

Mike Gravel (D)

Kamala Harris (D) 2 + 1 = 3

John Hickenlooper (D)

Jay Inslee (D) 2

Amy Klobuchar (D) 2

Wayne Messam (D)

 Seth Moulton (D) +1=1

Beto O'Rourke (D) 5 + 3 = 8

Tim Ryan (D)

Bernie Sanders (D)

Eric Swalwell (D)

Elizabeth Warren (D) 6 + 3 = 9

Marianne Williamson (D)

Andrew Yang (D) +1=1

Edited by horncyclist
I didn't do it right.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RDCanecutter

RDCanecutter 26258

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, tantric superman said:

Michael Bennet (D) Who?

Joe Biden (D) MeToo.

Bill de Blasio (D) BigBird.

Cory Booker (D) Ball-Headed

Steve Bullock (D) Who?

Pete Buttigieg (D) TooCleverByHalf

Julián Castro (D) SoIntenselyMexicanThatHeGrowsUpWithAMexicanMomInAMexicanTownAndCan'tSpeakMexican

John Delaney (D) Who?

Tulsi Gabbard (D) LaraCroft

Kirsten Gillibrand (D) FlipFloppiBrand

Mike Gravel (D) Who?

Kamala Harris (D) FakeMean

John Hickenlooper (D) Who?

Jay Inslee (D) Who?

Amy Klobuchar (D) FakeNice

Wayne Messam (D) Who?

Seth Moulton (D) Who?

Beto O'Rourke (D) BigEmpty

Tim Ryan (D) Who?

Bernie Sanders (D) XoroshoChelovik

Eric Swalwell (D) Who?

Elizabeth Warren (D) 5YearPlans

Marianne Williamson (D) Who?

Andrew Yang (D) TeslaWasRight

I don't really feel that I can express myself with mere numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tantric superman

tantric superman 4667

Posted
  • Author
Posted

We don't really need to see the math (+2, etc.).  Just come up with a new total. 

 

Looks like you did do it right.

 

New totals:

Michael Bennet (D) 

Joe Biden (D) 1

Bill de Blasio (D)

Cory Booker (D) 2

Steve Bullock (D)

Pete Buttigieg (D) 5

Julián Castro (D)  2

John Delaney (D)

Tulsi Gabbard (D)

Kirsten Gillibrand (D)

Mike Gravel (D)

Kamala Harris (D)  3

John Hickenlooper (D)

Jay Inslee (D) 2

Amy Klobuchar (D) 2

Wayne Messam (D)

 Seth Moulton (D) 1

Beto O'Rourke (D)  8

Tim Ryan (D)

Bernie Sanders (D)

Eric Swalwell (D)

Elizabeth Warren (D) 9

Marianne Williamson (D)

Andrew Yang (D) 1

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lemonlime

lemonlime 5503

Posted
Posted

Michael Bennet (D) 

Joe Biden (D) 

Bill de Blasio (D)

Cory Booker (D) 2

Steve Bullock (D)

Pete Buttigieg (D) 2

Julián Castro (D)

John Delaney (D)

Tulsi Gabbard (D)

Kirsten Gillibrand (D)

Mike Gravel (D)

Kamala Harris (D) 2

John Hickenlooper (D)

Jay Inslee (D) 1

Amy Klobuchar (D) 

Wayne Messam (D)

Seth Moulton (D)

Beto O'Rourke (D)

Tim Ryan (D)

Bernie Sanders (D)

Eric Swalwell (D)

Elizabeth Warren (D) 3

Marianne Williamson (D)

Andrew Yang (D) 1

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tantric superman

tantric superman 4667

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Adding Lemonlimes:

Michael Bennet (D) 

Joe Biden (D) 1

Bill de Blasio (D)

Cory Booker (D) 4

Steve Bullock (D)

Pete Buttigieg (D) 7

Julián Castro (D)  2

John Delaney (D)

Tulsi Gabbard (D)

Kirsten Gillibrand (D)

Mike Gravel (D)

Kamala Harris (D)  5

John Hickenlooper (D)

Jay Inslee (D) 3

Amy Klobuchar (D) 2

Wayne Messam (D)

 Seth Moulton (D) 1

Beto O'Rourke (D)  8

Tim Ryan (D)

Bernie Sanders (D)

Eric Swalwell (D)

Elizabeth Warren (D) 12

Marianne Williamson (D)

Andrew Yang (D) 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites
elfenix

elfenix 34171

Posted
Posted
While I think the idea of quadratic equation voting is bad (it completely destroys the concept of "1 man, 1 vote"), I think this is a lot of fun played out here specifically so we can see just how out-of-step we can get from the mainstream national polling.
You assume that one man, one vote is good. It has two things going for it (easy to understand and easy to tally), but it's pretty poor at matching preferences. Which is the actual goal, I would think.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13132

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, elfenix said:

You assume that one man, one vote is good. It has two things going for it (easy to understand and easy to tally), but it's pretty poor at matching preferences. Which is the actual goal, I would think.

If you want to measure preference then do ranked choice. This is just bizarre gamesmanship that pushes people into a weird competition; like the marshmallow game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AeroHorn

AeroHorn 735

Posted
Posted

Doesn't this method blunt your preferences rather than accentuating them? Wouldn't this make it harder to separate the candidates? This is giving square root values, whereas you should be giving square values to separate candidates.

Typically what I do when ranking things across a bunch of parameters is to multiply the values rather than add them. For example, you have 10 candidates. Have people value them by giving a value of 1 to 3 (meh, good, googly-eyes) or 1 to 5. If you just add up scores from all the people, the candidates will not stand out. But if you multiply the values each candidate gets, then you will get a very nice separation. Since this is multiplication, the range should start from 1 rather than 0. If you want to get more fancy, you multiply each value by a weight factor for that parameter based on what you think their importance is (5 for corruption, 3 for foreign policy, etc.). This will yield a fancy table with weighted scores that will show what people collectively think each candidate is good at, etc.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mole

Mole 4320

Posted
Posted (edited)

I think this catches everyone up. I added 4 for Buttigieg and 3 for Warren.

Edit: Screwed up Beto and Harris. 

Michael Bennet (D) 

Joe Biden (D) 1

Bill de Blasio (D)

Cory Booker (D) 5

Steve Bullock (D)

Pete Buttigieg (D) 16

Julián Castro (D)  2

John Delaney (D)

Tulsi Gabbard (D)

Kirsten Gillibrand (D)

Mike Gravel (D) 5

Kamala Harris (D)  10

John Hickenlooper (D)

John Hale (D)

Jay Inslee (D) 3

Amy Klobuchar (D) 2

Wayne Messam (D)

 Seth Moulton (D) 1

Beto O'Rourke (D)  13

Tim Ryan (D)

Bernie Sanders (D) 2

Eric Swalwell (D)

Elizabeth Warren (D) 25

Marianne Williamson (D)

Andrew Yang (D) 2

Edited by Mole
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tantric superman

tantric superman 4667

Posted
  • Author
Posted

(I'm counting on Mole to have correctly included you slackers.)

Leader Board as of 6/20/19

 

Elizabeth Warren (D) 25

Pete Buttigieg (D) 16

Beto O'Rourke (D)  13

Kamala Harris (D)  10

Cory Booker (D) 5

Mike Gravel (D) 5

Jay Inslee (D) 3

Amy Klobuchar (D) 2

Julián Castro (D)  2

Bernie Sanders (D) 2

Andrew Yang (D) 2

Joe Biden (D) 1

Seth Moulton (D) 1

 

I realize this is a small sample and this board isn't going to represent the salt of the earth, but the Warren vote surprises me a bit, especially in comparison to Bernie.  I find Warren's demeanor and voice to be grating as hell, but do think her issue focus softens out her negatives.  I figured that Pete and Beto would benefit from quadratic voting - likeable guys who deserve a vote but who might not be the first choice. I actually thought Biden would benefit from the method too, but I think his single vote is more a reflection of this board.

I would think that someone like Bernie wouldn't do good in quadratic voting where you had a large count, but I thought he'd get a couple of 5s on this board.  I guess the Bernie guys aren't voting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Js1 said:

What passes for conservative comedy these days is still pretty sad and pathetic and washed up.  Like the GOP! 

It wasn't partisan, but if the shoe fits...

We'll have a 30 page thread on disenfranchised voters, but ignore the real travishmockery of it all...

 

 

Edited by slorch
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tantric superman

tantric superman 4667

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, AeroHorn said:

Doesn't this method blunt your preferences rather than accentuating them? Wouldn't this make it harder to separate the candidates? This is giving square root values, whereas you should be giving square values to separate candidates.

Yep.  But what it really does is that it blunts the passionate outsiders and accentuates the moderates.   The idea is that it would penalize a Trump (complete outlier) or a Ted Cruz (asshole) or some random hard right guy in a Republican primary and help someone like a Bush or Rubio.  On the left it might penalize  someone on the edges (Sanders, maybe Tulsi??) but help the folks in the middle of the pack.

So it works like this.  A Trump dude will give all 5 of his votes to Trump.  If I'm voting in the Republican Primary back in 2016, I might give 3 votes to Bush, 3 to Rubio and 2 each to Kasich and Pataki.  

In other words, the more miktoasty/undecided or willing to play a safe bet, the more votes you get. 

It's designed to get each of the major parties to get two moderates into the general election.

Edited by tantric superman
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13132

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

I realize this is a small sample and this board isn't going to represent the salt of the earth, but the Warren vote surprises me a bit, especially in comparison to Bernie.

Have you been reading this board for the last 6 months? Who here likes Bernie? This board is primarily socially liberal/fiscally conservative white liberal men. Pretty much the opposite of Bernie's demographic.

This is exactly the top 4 I would have predicted as done today, and in this exact order.

Do this 3 weeks ago and Pete is the clear #1.

Do this 6 weeks ago and Beto is the clear #1.

Do this 9 weeks ago and Harris is the clear #1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85104

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Have you been reading this board for the last 6 months? Who here likes Bernie? This board is primarily socially liberal/fiscally conservative white liberal men. Pretty much the opposite of Bernie's demographic.

This is exactly the top 4 I would have predicted as done today, and in this exact order.

Do this 3 weeks ago and Pete is the clear #1.

Do this 6 weeks ago and Beto is the clear #1.

Do this 9 weeks ago and Harris is the clear #1. 

So in 3 weeks, Gravel will be #1? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13132

Posted
Posted
Just now, Js1 said:

So in 3 weeks, Gravel will be #1? 

In-fucking-shallah

But do you disagree with my estimation?

We have some people here who have chosen camps (I'm a woman-silencing/POC-erasing Bernie Bro, henry is a Buttigieg Bazinga, bama is a Betophile, et al), but most are still pretty much floating around and subject to the prevailing currents. So it depends on who the media's focus is on and what the larger emotional narrative is (who is being mean, who is being nice, etc...).

I HOPE Warren remains the favorite here all the way into the primaries. She's better than anyone else this lot would consider seriously

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tantric superman

tantric superman 4667

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Have you been reading this board for the last 6 months?

In one of my first college english classes, we all came in one day to discuss Hemingway's "Hills LIke White Elephants".  Everybody starts talking about the story and they start mentioning abortion, and I have no idea what the fuck they are talking about, even though I read the story pretty closely. 

All I kept thinking about how beautiful Liza (imagine a young Juliet Binoche with glasses) from across the table, who I wanted to lay with, was looking through me to my confusion, and knew what a dumbass I was.

So yes, I have been reading it. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13132

Posted
Posted
Just now, tantric superman said:

In one of my first college english classes, we all came in one day to discuss Hemingway's "Hills LIke White Elephants".  Everybody starts talking about the story and they start mentioning abortion, and I have no idea what the fuck they are talking about, even though I read the story pretty closely. 

All I kept thinking about how beautiful Liza (imagine a young Juliet Binoche with glasses) from across the table, who I wanted to lay with, was looking through me to my confusion, and knew what a dumbass I was.

So yes, I have been reading it. 

You should tell more stories, because you're good at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tantric superman

tantric superman 4667

Posted
  • Author
Posted
11 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

This board is primarily socially liberal/fiscally conservative white liberal men. Pretty much the opposite of Bernie's demographic.

I just think Bernie banking on the socially conservative, fiscally liberal black conservative women bloc was a mistake. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BradInATX

BradInATX 9208

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

In-fucking-shallah

But do you disagree with my estimation?

We have some people here who have chosen camps (I'm a woman-silencing/POC-erasing Bernie Bro, henry is a Buttigieg Bazinga, bama is a Betophile, et al), but most are still pretty much floating around and subject to the prevailing currents. So it depends on who the media's focus is on and what the larger emotional narrative is (who is being mean, who is being nice, etc...).

I HOPE Warren remains the favorite here all the way into the primaries. She's better than anyone else this lot would consider seriously

Yep anyone who hasn't locked into a candidate yet is just a simpleton subject to the whims of the media. Perhaps we'll wait to see who the Kardashians endorse.

I'm convinced you don't believe half the shit you spew.

Edited by BradInATX
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13132

Posted
Posted

You added "simpleton" because your only actual investment in this process is sparring and emotion, as evidenced by your complete lack of content-heavy posting and your incessant and pathetic need to constantly try to start fights with me.

Being subject to the prevailing currents is not about intelligence, it's about a lack of mooring. If someone isn't locked down (either completely or largely) on a candidate they are, unarguably, more influenced in their choices by what is going on around them than those who have claimed an allegiance.

Why are you so offended when you perceive that I am not validating you? I'm not your dad, go work out your issues with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AeroHorn

AeroHorn 735

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

Elizabeth Warren - 15i

Pete Buttigieg - 15i

Beto O'Rourke -  15i

Kamala Harris -  14i

Cory Booker - 2i

Joe Biden - 30

 

🙂 

Total = lim (x-> 0) [ Bernie ] [ the rest ] 

where [ Bernie ] = 5 / x

[ The rest ] = sin (x) = Warren - Tulsi + Beto - Biden + Kamala - ... (Taylor's series expansion)

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BradInATX

BradInATX 9208

Posted
Posted
You added "simpleton" because your only actual investment in this process is sparring and emotion, as evidenced by your complete lack of content-heavy posting and your incessant and pathetic need to constantly try to start fights with me.
Being subject to the prevailing currents is not about intelligence, it's about a lack of mooring. If someone isn't locked down (either completely or largely) on a candidate they are, unarguably, more influenced in their choices by what is going on around them than those who have claimed an allegiance.
Why are you so offended when you perceive that I am not validating you? I'm not your dad, go work out your issues with him.
Lol
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...