Turkish Presidential Election

Posted on by May 15, 2023

Turkey held a presidential election on May 14, 2023. Parties that had polled as much as 5% of the vote in the preceding parliamentary election were on the ballot automatically. Others needed 100,000 signatures by March 27. Eleven candidates tried to petition, but only two obtained enough signatures. Four candidates were on the ballot: two qualified under the 5% vote test, and two by petition.

No one received a majority, so there is a run-off on March 28. Here is the wikipedia page about the election.

Comments

Turkish Presidential Election — 52 Comments

  1. NONPARTISAN EXECS VIA APPV–

    PENDING CONDORCET– RCV DONE RIGHT WITH APPV TIEBREAKER

  2. @AZ,

    Have you ever done a Condorcet analysis of the election results for Alaska, Minneapolis, or St. Louis?

  3. It’s probably asking too much to ask AZZ to address counterarguments. But anyone who agrees with him, if indeed such people exist, I’d like to hear your best replies to the following:

    Nonpartisan executive elections already take place, at the municipal level. There are other elections which are formally nonpartisan, such as many judicial elections, the Nebraska unicameral legislature, and so on. But party named not formally appearing on the ballot does not make these elections truly nonpartisan. That is, they are nonpartisan de jure, but not de facto.

    Voters (at least ones who don’t vote Minnie minie mo or based on which name sounds best to them without knowing anything at all about any of the candidates) still manage to find out which party the candidates identify with, even though it is not printed on the ballot. At least, this is true of the better known and/or connected and/or financed candidates. For lesser known, less well connected, less well financed candidates, especially ones associated with a newer/smaller/less well financed party, they are much more likely to just be meaningless names and be ignored.

    Thus, technically nonpartisan elections actually have the paradoxic effect of making it easier for establishment candidates, parties, caucuses, and political lobbies or interests to maintain a tighter strangled on elections, and on the propagation of public discourse and ideas that takes place through the election process, even for candidates, parties, and ideas which have little or no hope of actually winning, particularly in significant numbers or at higher levels.

    Because the chances of breaking through or helping establish a brand or identify a set of ideas and supporters who can carry over from one election to the next thus become much lower, candidates who are not either establishment / mainstream / well connected / well known / well financed on the one hand, or completely insane and delusional on the other, are discouraged from running to begin with.

    This cuts out an important avenue through which ideas which start out as radical, extreme, or little known eventually have a way to break through and in some cases eventually become mainstream, and sometimes even part of the established consensus. Many ideas and changes in American (and other) history worked their way into the mainstream this way.

    So, the practical effect of nonpartisan elections is exactly the opposite of what some people might expect : concentrating power in fewer hands, making it harder to effectively break through and make changes, and harder to get new or different ideas well known so they can become popular and perhaps become adopted widely over time. For individuals who start out less well known, less well off, and less well connected it makes it less plausible to plug into a minor party or equivalent thereof, and/ or to build a following over successive elections to eventually have a realistic shot of winning significant office.

    Counterarguments please? If this is not a good forum to actually discuss these ideas, what’s a better one? Anyone?

  4. Legis – Partisan PR

    Execs/Judics – Nonpartisan APPV

    both pending Condorcet – RCV done right.

    many *nonpartisan* local execs are de facto partisan since local legislative bodies are UN-representative.
    —-
    JR- need all votes types – many voters fail to rank correctly >>> so called exhausted votes

  5. I’m sorry, I don’t understand your answer. Can someone who doesn’t speak shorthand jargon and either agrees with AZZ or can represent his position competently please reply?

  6. While you’re at it, maybe explain step by step exactly how condorcet would work. It seems like a rather nebulous concept from what I’ve read. How would it be practically implemented, with all relevant details covered?

    I know it would be too much to ask AZZ to make a case for why each of his proposals would make things better and not worse, or why it would be better than other competing proposed reforms, so I won’t bother. Maybe other people could chime in, or AZZ could always surprise me and answer without condescending, name calling, hyperbole, jargon, etc.

  7. CURRENT R-O-T >>> REFORMS

    1. ANTI-DEMOCRACY EXTREMIST CAUCUSES, PRIMARIES AND CONVENTIONS FOR PUBLIC OFFICE NOMINATIONS >>> REPEAL.
    ONE ELECTION DAY – EQUAL NOM PETS / FILING FEES FOR BALLOT ACCESS.

    2. EVIL AND VICIOUS ANTI-DEMOCRACY MINORITY RULE GERRYMANDERS IN LEGIS BODY ELECTIONS / AT LARGE ELECTIONS —

    BOTH DENYING 49.99 PCT MINORITIES ANY REAL REPRESENTATION >>> P.R. — BOTH MAJORITY RULE AND MINORITY REPRESENTATION.

    3. PARTY HACK EXECS/JUDICS >>> NONPARTISAN EXECS/JUDICS VIA APPROVAL VOTING.

    4. MANY FATAL VIOLATIONS OF SEP OF POWERS >>> TOTAL SOP.
    ————
    RELATED – UNIFORM DEFINITION OF ELECTOR-VOTER IN ALL OF USA
    ALL MAIL BALLOTS
    NO PUBLIC PARTY REGISTRATIONS — PURGE LISTS.

    LATER – CONDORCET ELECTIONS – APPV TIEBREAKERS
    ———

    10,000 WORD COMMENTS ABOUT EACH ROT AND REFORM NOT NEEDED.

    SEE NEW AGE 10,000 PAGE BILLS IN NEW AGE GERRYMANDER USA CONGRESS
    — OFTEN WITH MANY PAGES OF REASONS / FINDINGS FOR LATEST CONTROL FREAK LAWS
    — TO GET PAST SCOTUS.
    —
    SEE EARLIER EFFORTS FROM 1776 TO 1865 TO GET SLAVERY REPEALED —
    VIA COPIES OF ANTI-SLAVERY SENTENCE IN OLDE 1787 NW ORDINANCE– ABOUT 10 WORDS.

    COST TO GET 13 AMDT – ABOUT 750,000 DEAD / BILLIONS IN DEBT / PROPERTY DESTRUCTION / HYPER-INFLATION.

    MUCH WORSE ENTRENCHED ROT NOW — ABOUT 35-45 PCT OF POPULATION WHOLLY DEPENDENT ON LOOTING OTHER 65-55 PCT OF POPULATION – VIA THE ABOVE 4 ROT ITEMS.

  9. CNN is not a reliable news source. Can you find other resources which cover the same stories without the left wing bias and spin and without the frequent errors, misrepresentations and outright lies CNN is infamous for?

  11. FOR ANY NEWBEES —

    RCV ROT EXAMPLE- MIDDLE IS DIVIDED AS USUAL

    34 LMR
    33 RML
    16 MLR
    16 MRL

    WITH RCV–
    M LOSES, L 50 – R 49

    M HAS 99 OF 99 VOTES IN 1+2 PLACE VOTES

    ADVANCED STUDENTS DO REVERSE MATH – SYMMETRY
    —-
    CONDORCET –
    M BEATS L 65-39
    M BEATS R 66-33

    COPY AND PUT ON WALL NEAR I-NET SCREEN

  12. Typing in all caps and claiming that further explanation is not needed, as well as repeating yourself endlessly, is not going to convince me or anyone else that you are correct. I’m open to the possibility that you may be correct about all or parts of what you say. I’m also open to the possibility you are wrong. If you are not willing to discuss it, spell it out so it’s at least understandable, make a case, and engage counterarguments, no problem. In that case I’m not talking to you, but rather asking anyone and everyone else reading who understands what all you’re talking about and either agrees with you or is willing and able to argue on behalf of any positions you take to do so, even if they personally don’t agree with them.

    Step one would be explaining exactly how some of them would work. Condorcet for example. I’ve looked it up, and the mechanics are poorly defined. It’s more of an aspirational goal than a precise method, as far as I can tell.

    Step two, I don’t care if you agree with or not. Saying everything is far from perfect now or in the past (and exaggerating how bad it is) is not the same thing as making the case that your proposals will make things better. It may just be that, as bad as things are, this is the best we can do until Jesus comes back, AI singularity, evolutionary mutation, space alien landing, or (pick preferred future event that’s out of our hands). Or even the best we can do, period, and we’re just biding time until things get worse or some disaster makes all of this moot. It could also be that some reforms will make things better. However, other reforms could make things worse. Yours could easily be in either category. There are a lot of competing proposals out there. If you’re not able or willing to make the case for yours or engage counterarguments, hopefully someone else will be on their behalf. If not, your proposals are that much less likely to win the battle of ideas. If this isn’t a good place to ask, what are some better places? Anyone?

    As for AZZ I don’t know what he hopes to accomplish by endless repetition, jargon, broken caps lock, condescending attitude, etc. If it makes him feel important, good for him, whatever. It’s doing nothing to convince me or anyone else, and that’s the few of us who actually care and are open to the possibility he could be right, and happen to encounter this forum. Most people don’t fall into any of those categories, much less all three.

  13. AZ, I have no clue what you are even trying to say a lot of the time. That would include your most recent two messages at 3:27 and 3:34. If you don’t care whether anyone understands you or not, keep doing what you’re doing.

  14. In case it wasn’t clear, I’m asking other people to make a case for AZZ proposals, if anyone cares to do so. AZZ is too much of an AZZ and way too reticent and condescending, and I guess so sure he’s right he thinks it will take away from his case if he bothers to explain it and engage skeptical questions. Or maybe it’s the other way around – he’s afraid he will lose his faith if he has to explain it and logically defend it. Whatever; he can do whatever he wants. He can surprise me and actually make a case and defend it. Or someone else can argue on behalf of his views. Or they can go in the mental wastebasket. And that’s coming from someone who’s fairly open minded. Most people aren’t, and don’t have time or patience to even consider it.

  15. OP has an error. The second round will be May 28, not March 28 (which would be either in the past or in some future year). That’s rather obvious, but the obvious is often overlooked.

  16. Good luck to President Erdogan in the second round. He is greatly preferable to his opponent, despite his flaws.

  17. Dooley,

    Most of what AZ posts is drivel. I’ve read enough of it to understand it fairly well. Not perfectly, but much better than I did at first. It took a lot longer than the vast majority of readers will bother to give him. I’ve considered his ideas, and I think each of them would make things worse, not better. You are correct that he doesn’t bother engaging counterarguments, or can’t do so straightforwardly without name calling, deflection, etc. So, I generally don’t bother.

  18. I’ve posted a competing set of proposed reforms. Unlike AZ, I’m willing to engage counterarguments, and to change my proposals or even discard them if they are found lacking. I’m looking for hard questions to kick the tires of my proposal and see where it can be improved or whether any objections make sense.

    I too have found this forum less than ideal for that, and am looking for non sarcastic suggestions of some better places to try asking. What I’ve gotten here so far is a lot of questions ignored. When anyone does bother to respond , they usually start with the assumption I’m trolling, arguing in bad faith, lying, etc. In a lot of cases the exact same people offer the exact criticisms or questions they did earlier, without any signs of having read prior replies, much less thought about them.

    They will usually throw in some name calling, assigning me views I don’t even remotely agree with and then proceeding to argue against those, making the worst possible assumptions about motives and outcomes alike, etc. Questions, much less ones which aren’t loaded , are fairly rare. Sometimes people will chime in to agree with me, but provide little if any additional details. This isn’t doing much of anything to improve the proposal or see what I’ve failed to consider in coming up with it.

    Ironically, despite being one of the worst offenders in all these regards, AZ is one of the very few here that every once in a great while offers up a good question which actually makes me think. Unfortunately, you have to sort through a haystack of crap to find those few gems, and very few people would have the time or patience to do so.

  19. TYPO-

    CONDORCET –
    M BEATS L 65-34
    M BEATS R 66-33
    COPY AND PUT ON WALL NEAR I-NET SCREEN

  20. Yeah, it still doesn’t make any sense, before or after the correction. I’d ask for a translation of your jibberish, except that you’re the same guy who said in another discussion here today that Trump is right next to Hitler as the worst tyrants the world has ever seen in the last century or so, and then proceeded to double and triple down on that while calling OTHER people morons . That’s a whopper you don’t ever get to live down, because saying something that monumentally stupid and offensive at the same time is just not OK.

  22. Yeah, if I got called out for saying something as idiotic and offensive as comparing Trump to Hitler, I might try to follow up with a nonsequitur too. But it’s not going to work. You’re still the guy who said that and thus dug a hole it’s impossible to dig yourself out of no matter how long and hard you dig. The twinky defense ain’t gonna cut it. From now on you will always be THAT guy. It will be chiseled on your tombstone, even if that’s the only thing there’s room for. You can run. But you can’t hide. Not now. Not ever.

  23. Will the loser of the second round end up in a Turkish prison?

  25. I pointed that out at 3:52 yesterday. I guess it doesn’t hurt to point it out again, since the error is still there as of this time.

  26. So many unanswered questions above. Too bad Az is so ignorant and monomaniacal. If he isn’t a bit, he may as well be.

  28. Come to think of it, could be bit too, as in comedy not. Just not a good one.

  29. JR –

    RE RCV MATH —

    DEPENDS A BIT WHETHER A VOTER CAN/MUST RANK ALL CHOICES ON A BALLOT –

    IE AK TOP 4 PRIMARY

    VOTER RANKS 1-3

    CHOICE 4 NOT RANKED OR AUTO RANKED ???
    —-
    HIGHLY LIKELY AK RCV VOTES WILL BE ANALYZED – ESP FOR USA REP.

  30. The simplest explanation of the Condorcet method of voting is to think of it as paired voting. That is to say, if there are more than two candidates for a position, then separate votes are taken between each pair of candidates, and the candidate who wins each and every pairing is the Condorcet winner, and the true majority choice. However, it sometimes happens than no candidate wins all the pairings because of cyclical preferences (i.e. A is preferred to B, B is preferred to C, but C is preferred to A), so an alternative rule must be established to pick a winner with less than a majority.

    However, because the method in it pure form could require multiple rounds of voting, ranked voting is employed to determine the choice in one round. Tabulation methods vary, but all aim to determine the Condorcet winner, if there is one.

    The method was defined by a French Girondin revolutionary named the Marquis of Condorcet. However, during the Jacobin regime, the Girondists fell out of favor, and Condorcet ended up in prison.

    The method he helped developed is described in detail in a Wikipedia article:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method

  31. Sounds complicated, crazy, still somewhat nebulous, like a formula for voter confusion and vote counting fraud and manipulation, etc. Making things even more complicated and weird when it comes to elections sounds like the absolute last thing we need. And tabulation methods vary? Yeah, no thanks.

  32. But whatever voting method is used, a more important question is what is being done to keep people who are mentally incompetent from running for office or voting? To take two obvious examples, mentally incompetent politicians such as Dementia Joe Biden, and mentally incompetent voters such as Az who apparently in all seriousness believe that Donald Trump is just like Adolf Hitler.

  33. TRUMP HAD ZERO TO DO WITH THE 6 JAN 2021 INSURRECTION / REBELLION AT CAPITOL BLDG IN DC ???

    YEAH. SURE. – IF ONE IS A TROLL MORON.

    COUNT THE NOW MANY 6 JAN 2021 CONVICTED CRIMINALS.

    HOW MANY WILL TRUMP PARDON IF HE GETS PREZ P-O-W-E-R AGAIN — IN THE USA BANANA REPUBLIC ???
    —
    SEE EARLIER HITLER – NOV 1923 REBELLION ATTEMPT IN GERMANY. MERE TREASON CONVICTION – MERE 2 YEARS IN SLAMMER.
    LATER – MURDERS OF FOLKS IN 1934 WHO PUT HIM IN JAIL

  34. Was TRUMP leading a breach of the capitol? Did he tell anyone to do that? Point out the orders or directions where he did that? Do you have one single verifiable fact, or just erroneous insinuations?

  35. Calling J6 an insurrection or rebellion is an insult to the memory of those who died in actual insurrections and rebellions around the world, such as the American revolution. One person died on J6, and she was killed by a cop.

  36. In the long run, the most important thing is to distribute power as much as possible, so that no one person or party ever gets full control. That way dangerous or incompetent people are effectively neutralized by checks and balances. That’s the whole point of Madison in Federalist #10.

    The US has done a pretty good job in this regard. We have divided sovereignty between states, separation of powers within government, and bicameralism within the legislature.

    The weak point in our Constitution is the Presidency. Both major parties battle (amongst literally now) to control the Presidency so they can used executive power to short circuit and override the checks and balances in the Constitution.

    The long term remedy for this, IMO, is to abolish the office of President, and create a multi-member executive council, as in Switzerland. Switzerland has maintained a true, Madisonian federal constitution better than the US has because of this.

  37. Had TRUMP actually breached the capitol on J6, or ordered or told anyone to do so, neither of which happened, that still wouldn’t make him Hitler. Hundreds of coups have taken place in numerous countries all over the world since Hitler. Hitler did some other things which made him on a level with a much more select group of dictators such as Stalin – ordered the murder of millions of people, tried to wipe out entire ethnic groups, invaded and occupied numerous countries, caused the invasion and occupation of his own country. Trump hasn’t even remotely done any of those things. AZ is a troll moron.

    Only a troll moron would keep comparing Trump to Hitler after it has been pointed out to him over and over that it’s factually ridiculous, deeply offensive to holocaust survivors and their families, and dangerous because crying wolf like that could facilitate the rise of a real new Hitler. Az is a troll moron whose dangerous psychosis should be treated in a secure mental health facility to prevent harm to himself, and more importantly to others.

  39. And don’t suppose that plurality voting isn’t manipulated. Gerrymandered, Single member districts, overly complicated ballot access rules, byzantine campaign finance reporting requirements have all been implement to restrict the election as much as possible to, at most, the candidates of the two lousiest parties.

    When one considers how so many legislative incumbents on both the state and federal level go unchallenged year after year, can it be said that people really have any meaningful choices under plurality voting?

  40. ANTI-DEMOCRACY MINORITY RULE ROT IN ALL PARTS OF USA REGIME —

    USA REP GERRYMANDERS
    SENATE – SEMI-PERM GERRYMANDER
    EC – MIX OF REP AND SEN GERRYMANDERS – COPY OF OLDE ROT FOR CHOOSING OLDE GERMAN AND POLISH KINGS

    HACK JUDGES – APPOINTED VIA TYRANT PREZS AND SENATE HACKS
    —
    TOP TO BOTTOM ROT AND WORSE/WORSE TYRANTS IN WHITE HOUSE.

    MEDIA- BRAIN DEAD IGNORANT — BUT LOVING TALKING HEAD TYRANTS – ESP SINCE 1960 AND THEN COLOR TV.
    —-
    P-A-T

  41. Walter is somewhat correct, and somewhat wrong. I agree about gerrymandered districts, complicated ballot access rules (and complicated rules in general), abd byzantine campaign finance reporting requirements. My proposal would completely dispense with all of those, root and branch.

    Walter is wrong about distributed power. The basis of the theory is sound, but it hasn’t worked out as advertised. Government is simultaneously both monumentally wasteful and incompetent, and relentlessly growing in size, scope, and complexity. The federal presidency alone is an insignificantly small part of this much larger problem.

    Madison was correct that power is too dangerous to concentrate in too few hands, but erred greatly that this issue can be addressed within the design of government. Subsequent events have demonstrated that despite being divided against itself, the political, bureaucratic, and crony capitalist class eventually discovers how to manipulate and evade public opinion to perpetually maintain and expand power. The nominal division of power only ends up adding to its complexity, overhead cost, wastefulness, and adds the escape hatch of allowing finger pointing deflection to evade responsibility among them; i.e. the buck stops nowhere, and I know I am but what are they, etc. After a quarter millennium, what you have as a result is government that has grown faster in its size, scope, encroachment on freedom, and deadliness than even under the worst of absolute hereditary tyranny of antiquity and modern times alike.

    The real separation of powers, instead, should be between the voluntary and involuntary sectors, with the involuntary sector strictly confined to defense from criminals and foreign invaders, and those two functions completely separate from each other at two completely different and unconnected levels of government.

    By keeping government mitts off, families, churches, religious orders, charities, businesses, guilds, professional organizations, voluntary neighborhood associations, fraternal organizations, and other voluntary sector groups balance power much more effectively than any division of powers within government. By keeping laws short and simple and easily understood and memorized by the average man, a major avenue for government to screw people over and keep them tied in knots is removed. By concentrating government power aside from national defense at the very local level, it ensures that peace officers are kept accountable through their many voluntary sector roles and ties to the communities where they live and work.

    By putting the practical interpretation and implementation of the laws in the hands of those charged with enforcing them, I propose to make them more accountable for their decisions. By making the written laws very simple and hard to change, I propose to remove a major part of government chicanery used to gradually bamboozle the citizenry and shift power into the hands of government and its bureaucrats, cronies, and adjacent parasites such as lawyers, lobbyists, government contractors, and so on. By having peace officers elected annually, and easily replaced during that year by the winning party, I propose to add a layer of accountability.

    Another layer of accountability from the political sector to the interconnected mesh of the voluntary sector described above is added by making voting in person and on the record; voting is political power, and political power without accountability is dangerous, no less for those voting than those whom they elect. A big check on government power is civilian gun and ammunition ownership and military training, which my proposals encourage. Swift, sure, and severe punishment of criminals is proposed to make crime very rare, freeing the law abiding public from much of the fear and costs of both crime and law enforcement, while encouraging law abiding behavior and other forms of conflict prevention and resolution with peace officers brought in only as a last resort, such as through decision-making and punishment by the family patriarch, church counseling, business association meeting, voluntary part time neighborhood watch, private arbitration company, and so on.

    I seem to take the rationale behind the separation of powers idea and improve on it. Government is least bad when fingers can’t be pointed to shift blame endlessly, when it’s kept local, simple, and low overhead, when the rules are simple, reliable, and easy to understand, when there are multiple levels of accountability from outside of government, and so on as described above.

  44. Pat, that is indeed a good definition.

    As AZ and other regular readers know, CNN is among the worst of notoriously fake news, but then again AZ is the notoriously clueless troll moron who can’t tell the rather obvious differences between Donald Trump and Adolf Hitler, no matter how much his face is rubbed in the disgusting odious stench and unspeakable foulness of such dangerous and deeply offensive false equivalation.

  45. Does AZ have any current leaders anywhere that he has anything good to say about? Which ones does he think are worse than others, relatively speaking?

  46. AZ is the perpetual boy who cried wolf when it comes to real world political leaders. But, he’s completely sure that his largely untested theories would make things better rather than worse, and that they are the best among the countless other actual and potential alternatives. Of course, no system in history or the world today is perfect, but there are always relative differences, some mix of good and bad, some things which are getting better and some which are getting worse.

    If things are perpetually and uniformly horrible, constantly getting worse, and the sky is always about to fall in AZ chicken little land, why should anyone believe that he is the one true prophet? Has he healed the sick, walked on water, risen from the dead, turned water into wine, etc? Why does AZ seem to think that he is above reproach, or that anyone who asks him probing questions or advances a competing set of proposed solutions must be a clueless preschool troll moron etc etc? Is it because he’s projecting or psychologically transferring his own shortcomings unto others?

  47. “Madison was correct that power is too dangerous to concentrate in too few hands, but erred greatly that this issue can be addressed within the design of government”

    Switzerland demonstrates otherwise. The decision not to have a sole executive has proved to be wise.

  48. If you’ve looked at my proposal, I likewise don’t call for a sole executive. Nevertheless, my statement still stands, particularly with the context you omitted added back in.

  49. To be fair I do call for a commander in chief of the military. HOWEVER that would only be in regards to national defense, and he would be elected by Admirals and Generals, perhaps with some input from lower ranks. If it comes down to defending the country in war, and there is disagreement among the top ranks on some given emergency, sometimes there is not time for a vote of the commanders. Someone has to make a split second final decision. I don’t see a practical way to have a military without a commander in chief.

    The only other legitimate function of government is local law enforcement, and as I said, I do not call for a sole executive there. Peace officers and deputies can generally handle crime without overarching coordination, particularly at the low crime levels I envision. If some great wave of crime overwhelmed some precinct, maybe the winning party precinct captain could coordinate peace officers if need be, but I just don’t see that happening in reality.

  50. In the real world, I agree that the Swiss model has a lot of advantages. I think my proposal is significantly better, for one thing because many of the best things about Switzerland are now turning for the worse, but it’s still pretty good as far as things that have actually been tried go, and despite my radical proposals, in reality I place a lot of value in real world results. I don’t think we will get to anything like my ideal in one or two generations, even if it does prove to be ideal, unless there’s a major systemic collapse first, and that’s not something I can in good conscience wish for.

  51. Congratulations to President Erdogan on the second round Ultimate Victory. As I said earlier, far better than the alternative.

  52. I notice that despite two of us pointing it out week as ago, the article above at this time continues to have a typo (March 28).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.