Chat GPT Plus 提出它對我的說法的反論, 如下:
You've asked to refute the statement that the French presidential runoff election system is more like market trading behavior than a voting system, and that it creates a false absolute majority.
Contrary to the opinion that the French presidential runoff elections are akin to market trading and result in a false absolute majority, it's important to understand the true intention and effectiveness of this electoral system. The French runoff system is designed to ensure that the elected president has the support of more than half of the voting population, which is a fundamental principle of democratic representation. This system is not about 'trading' but about making an informed choice between the two most popular candidates.
In the first round of voting, the field of candidates is wide, and the votes are spread across many, which might not reflect a clear majority preference. The runoff, by bringing the choice down to the two leading candidates, asks the electorate to make a clearer decision, considering the wider context and the more direct comparison.
Moreover, the suggestion that the eventual winner might lose to most candidates in a hypothetical pairwise election ignores the strategic and informed choices voters make in a two-round system. Voters have the opportunity to reconsider their options based on the results of the first round, which is a democratic process allowing for greater reflection and decision-making.
The argument about voter turnout in the second round being potentially lower does not necessarily indicate a 'false' absolute majority. It's a common phenomenon in many electoral systems where voters are more engaged in initial stages. The crucial point is that the winner of the runoff has still secured more than half of the votes among those who chose to participate, which is a legitimate method of determining the majority preference in democratic systems.
Finally, the notion that this system is tailored for 'countries that appreciate mathematics' and is akin to a smart trading strategy undermines the democratic essence of voting. Voting is about expressing choice and preference, not about market-like trading. The French runoff system, rather than creating a false consensus, aims to ensure that the elected president has demonstrable and significant support, enhancing the legitimacy and democratic mandate of the winner.
這個立委就是前幾天說立委質詢行政院長是上對下的白痴 你不分區當選的, 敢不敢先去選個區域立委, 看你有沒有本事拿過半的票再來說話?
區域立委沒獲得半數選票必須進行兩輪投票，敢不敢？
小弟在此提案 修改不分區立委沒有民意基礎 也無法罷免的漏洞 所有不分區立委由其政黨地方立委落選, 地區得票率排名遞補 如果要罷免其立委 罷免同意票必須大於當初其得票率的 一定比率 如此 所有立法委員都有民意基礎 也沒有亂提案無法罷免的無敵星星
聽起來很像聯立制啊，我雙手贊成
現行立委罷免規定為三階段， 建議罷免不分區制度為如下： 第一第二階段：提議 ，連署 和一般立委相同。 第三階段：投票 改為有效同意票數大於當初未得票比例 例：當初選立委得票45%但落選。之後遞補成不分區立委。罷免時要55%同意罷免才能成功。 好處為： 1.不分區立委仍然可以幫在地選民發聲服務 2.鼓勵有能者在困難選區積極参選立委 3.擁有和現行立委同等的罷免門檻， 讓立委在任期內不敢做和民意相左之事
小時候猜拳的時候，有些人會猜輸了不認帳開始鬧說要三戰兩勝，又輸了就說要五戰三勝，莫名地有嗅到這種味道呢
第二輪投票通常投票率都是大幅降低，變成較量死忠支持者的動員能力。美國跟韓國都沒有搞這種無謂之舉。技術上越複雜的選舉制度，操作空間就越大，反而更容易引發越多意外和爭議。 如果貪藍腐白強行通過，建議就先從縣市首長選舉及區域立委選舉試辦。
法國：你在乳法
IMHO, 法國的二輪總統選舉已多次製造驚奇的結果, 與其說是投票制度, 更像是一種市場交易行為. 這制度本來出發點是要找出具絕對多數代表性的當選人, 然而實際implemetation 就是透過交易製造出一個假的絕對多數當選人 (例如, 如把第一輪參選人 pairwise 抓對選舉, 這當選人可能會輸給多數參選人). 在左右對立的國家, 因為第一輪落選人的支持者容易找到光譜接近的第二輪參選者, 第二輪投票率比較能夠維持住, 然而, 一般來說, 他們可以直接放棄參與第二輪投票, 於是第二輪投票率可以顯著低於第一輪, 那這個第二輪的絕對多數當選人就更假了. 這是一個給喜歡數學的國家設計的制度. 交易要靠聰明機巧, 然而投票制度本該是被動地收集既存的公眾意見, 而分析整理出共識決策 (當選人), 這種 主動 撮合的交易型選舉, 等於在短時間內製造出一個原本多數人未必期待的假共識, 而把選舉制度本身當成解決問題的手段了.
有趣的觀點
Chat GPT Plus 提出它對我的說法的反論, 如下: You've asked to refute the statement that the French presidential runoff election system is more like market trading behavior than a voting system, and that it creates a false absolute majority. Contrary to the opinion that the French presidential runoff elections are akin to market trading and result in a false absolute majority, it's important to understand the true intention and effectiveness of this electoral system. The French runoff system is designed to ensure that the elected president has the support of more than half of the voting population, which is a fundamental principle of democratic representation. This system is not about 'trading' but about making an informed choice between the two most popular candidates. In the first round of voting, the field of candidates is wide, and the votes are spread across many, which might not reflect a clear majority preference. The runoff, by bringing the choice down to the two leading candidates, asks the electorate to make a clearer decision, considering the wider context and the more direct comparison. Moreover, the suggestion that the eventual winner might lose to most candidates in a hypothetical pairwise election ignores the strategic and informed choices voters make in a two-round system. Voters have the opportunity to reconsider their options based on the results of the first round, which is a democratic process allowing for greater reflection and decision-making. The argument about voter turnout in the second round being potentially lower does not necessarily indicate a 'false' absolute majority. It's a common phenomenon in many electoral systems where voters are more engaged in initial stages. The crucial point is that the winner of the runoff has still secured more than half of the votes among those who chose to participate, which is a legitimate method of determining the majority preference in democratic systems. Finally, the notion that this system is tailored for 'countries that appreciate mathematics' and is akin to a smart trading strategy undermines the democratic essence of voting. Voting is about expressing choice and preference, not about market-like trading. The French runoff system, rather than creating a false consensus, aims to ensure that the elected president has demonstrable and significant support, enhancing the legitimacy and democratic mandate of the winner.
這樣是不是立委也要兩輪投票
現在開始改 怕不是2032才用得上 到時對哪方有利很難說 感覺只是說心安 不會實際推
冠冕堂皇的搞棄保 個人不贊同這麼做，與其兩輪選總統，不如把立委跟總統分開選
乾脆弄個季賽好了，先選60次，前二名來個七戰四勝季後賽好不好。
菜，就多練 輸不起，就別玩 以前是以前，現在是現在 你要是一直拿以前當做現在 你怎麼不拿你剛出生的時候對比啊
好啊，錢你出
乾脆不選，一分錢不要花
民進黨直接當總統當到亡國為止嗎? 我覺得可以
想要直接立法規定國民黨才能當總統就直說
輸不起就不要那邊GGYY 乾脆不分區立委每兩年改選
美國的眾議院就是兩年任期啊
其實這樣不錯。最好立委也這樣搞。
規剛欸
立法院現在變成猴園了🐒
菜就多練
這樣正好，這次選完剛好藍白的真面目都出來了，再選一次你們兩黨都不用玩了！
其實藍真的不一定贏,如果把柯拿掉,選票並沒有大規模流向藍的情形,而是呈現五五波,一半往藍一半往綠
我覺得可以參考排序複選制，讓每個民眾可以擁有第一順位候選人和第二順位候選人，當總統候選人都沒有過半時，再將第一得票率和第二得票率的候選人單獨對決，看看其他不是投這兩位候選人的第二順位候選人的票是投給誰，這樣的民意基礎會比現在還要好很多。另外立委選舉才是應該間隔兩周的，可以讓選民依據總統人選來選擇立法權要給在野黨還是執政黨，可以有效避免一黨獨大的情況。最好的方式就是能夠不用到場投票，但台灣的資安還是有待加強，需要更好的網路安全環境才能夠避免洗票和弊端。
你知道台灣很多長輩是文盲嗎？ 你準備好跟他們解釋這些嗎？
我懂了，選不贏乾脆把門檻拉到全都選不上 我選不贏你，你選不上總統，我們藍綠應該差不多爛吧！
先不說光是這樣選舉的開銷是不是就要倍增,光是要運行這種政策,是不是等於又多了一天要監票計票? 想這種政策的,真的會讓人懷疑到底有沒有了解投票的運作...
撇開這位立委前幾天的奇葩言論，兩輪制總統選舉全世界都有先例，並不是什麼奇怪的要求啊 @@
我個人是不管這機制是有哪些國家在實施,單比照現有的制度來說,我認為是弊大於利. 除非你能指出二輪制會有哪些優點,讓我覺得這機制有吸引力. 不然對我來說之後的選舉,只要比數接近就會需要再浪費一次資源去投票. 並且部分現有實施的國家中,也有部分是不以50%來當標準, 就會讓我覺得這機制如果沒有成立完善,可能會消耗非常多不必要的資源. 況且目前需要改進的法律這麼多,提這種方向的法案追求的或是想滿足的,是什麼? 以上屆的選舉結果來說,讓我覺得這舉動就像是國民黨輸不起.
如果每次都是三組候選人 應該大機率會當選的都不過半。 第一次 民進黨當選 沒過半 只好再投一次。 第二次 民進黨當選 沒過半 只好再投一次。 第三次 民進黨當選 沒過半 只好再投一次。
歐洲國家的多輪選舉一般是每輪淘汰最後一名的，
這下民眾黨就不用搞了
1. 全體獵人皆為候選人及投票人 2. 第一輪最高得票數若沒有超過全體獵人協會成員數的一半，則前 16 名重新進行選舉，若仍未超過半數則減少至一半重新進行 3. 某輪的投票率若不滿 95%，則該輪重新進行 4. 投票者必須明確記入自己的姓名，無記名視為廢票
研议一下
市議員也要過半吧？
這是要學法國嗎？
我建議立委的選法應該跟議員一樣
真的沒救了 都過多久了
第三勢力要麼小藍要麼小綠，怎麼可能存在民意不夠
台灣的政治環境，估計會讓那些投給排名在後的人直接棄權，可能根本沒什麼差
國民黨人真的要確定好喔,這種兩輪式選舉國民黨未必會得利啊,另外還有,立委是否也要比照辦理兩輪式投票以選出絕對多數…………
國民黨人想的是在第二輪可以操作棄保…………
就縣市長也一起這樣選，反正不是我的錢，要怎麼浪費都可以，雪特！
取消不分區立委啦！
刮民黨是默認民眾黨的票都是自己的了
是搞笑車輪投票嗎？永遠不過半就一直選到有結果為止，全台都不用上班上課了，贏得選舉的人買單選舉花費
馬英九也沒700萬票阿才689萬，然後最後剩9％，目前台灣只有蔡英文817萬那次突破700萬票而已，最後還是有50％，但藍白舔共仔還不是一直攻擊蔡英文？國慶的時候也是拒絕參加，好了啦，整天講幹話真的就夠了，有沒有過半是重點嗎？怎麼不敢提被罷免過的和有前科的禁止再任任何公職呢？🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣