Just to relieve you: You (as Floridians) don't really leave a bad impression in the International media; America is one big clusterfuck to us to lol at. We are happy that we don't have any deposit of oil, though...
What do you mean "man up" to fix it? Why not 'femme up'? Since women are the god damn majority of voters now if you haven't seen the numbers. Maybe now we can stop blaming every failure in history on "men". Florida's so-called "fuck up" isn't one at all. You think a robo call that tells 12,500 voters to vote on wednesday was a mistake?!? You think the polls closing at 7 is a mistake? You think the letters that were sent out over the summer telling 182,000 voters they might not be citizens was a mistake? None of this shit is mistake. This is a corrupt, republican run state that is making a sloppy as fuck mess out of its attempts to stop everyone other than republicans from voting. The 2000 election was no 'debacle'. It was George W's BROTHER who was governor of the state!!! "Yo bro- hook me up!" The person who certified the election in the state was Bush's CAMPAIGN MANAGER. It wasn't a mistake. It was a rigged election.
The first half refers to the way in which our popular vote is conducted. Each person can only vote for one person, and whoever has the most votes at the end is considered the winner. This is called 'first past the post' because the winner is whoever is the farthest ahead of the rest of the candidates. The problem with this method of voting is that it is extraordinarily difficult for a third party to accumulate enough votes to overtake one of the two main party's, and in attempting to do so, it takes votes out of the camps of either of the two main parties.
Now, imagine you have three candidates, A, B, and C. A and B belong to the main parties, but you agree most with candidate C. However, you really don't want A to win. Now you have a choice: you can either vote for your best fit, or you can vote for your second best fit. If you vote for your first best fit, you will be accurately represented at the polls, but there is a chance that because you have "taken" your vote out of the B camp (your secondary choice) to vote for C that you have strengthened the likelihood of A winning, which you really don't want. If you vote for your second best fit, yeah, you won't be represented accurately, but, hey, at least A is less likely to win, right?
So, the problem, as you can probably imagine is that candidate C is very unlikely to be elected, and so, anyone who is represented by C will not get who they want into office. Now imagine the polls look like this: A 45%, B 40%, C 15%. We've already established that C is not getting who they want to win -- so 15% of the population is now not being represented. And, as you can see from the polls, A is the first past the post, with 45%, meaning that candidate B's constituency of 40% is not being represented. So, that means, that 40% from B, and 15% from C are not being represented, for a total 55% of the people not being represented even a little bit. So the ratio of represented people to not represented people is 45:55, or, in other words, most people aren't being represented. This is clearly a problem, right?
Well, there is an alternative way to vote. In this alternative, instead of voting for one person, you make a list of people for whom you'd like to vote, in order of who you would most like to win to least. So, let's look at that same scenario again: you want C to win, but you really don't want A to win, so you fill out your ballot as follows. You put C as your first choice, and B as your second choice. Let's say this is what all C voters do, because B is the second closest candidate. Now the polls come out again and the results are: A 45%, B 40%, and C 15%. Candidate C lost, and so is dropped out of the race. However, instead of his votes disappearing, they get shifted over to the next candidate selected by the C voters, B. A new poll is drawn, and the results are: A 45% and B 55%. B is declared the winner.
In this scenario, instead of 55% of the people not being represented at all, 55% of the people are at least partially represented, with 45% of people being unrepresented, making the new ratio 55:45 -- much better. Not only will the effect be that more people are represented, but it will also make people comfortable voting with their best fit candidate, rather than the lesser of two evils with the main two parties.
A new, slightly less extreme candidate on the A side, D appears on the ballot, and B and C continue as normal. The new polls show: A 35% D 10% B 35% C 20%. D loses, and the new polls show: A 40% B 40% and C 20%. C loses, and the new polls show: A 40% B 60%. So, by making people more comfortable voting with a third party, you can actually get more accurate results, and represent the most people possible. In this case 60:40 as opposed to 45:55!
Sorry if that was a long explanation, but there it is. The problem with, and the solution to FPTP voting.
I really can't figure out why Florida is so much worse at this than everyone else . I live in a 'swinger' state and we had it figured out right away. Also I didn't have to wait in line at all, and I got TWO stickers for voting.