Warning: Some posts on this platform may contain adult material intended for mature audiences only. Viewer discretion is advised. By clicking ‘Continue’, you confirm that you are 18 years or older and consent to viewing explicit content.
They way to fix things is voting reform. But it can’t be just any reform.
We have to ditch Ordinal voting systems. Every single one of them leads to some degree of two party dominance, with voters having to prioritize strategy over their own needs, because not doing so means they will be actively punished.
Cardinal systems are the only way to escape. Strategic voting becomes less necessary and less impactful.
My current favorite system is STAR. It takes all the great ideas of the best cardinal voting system (Score) and adds in an automatic runoff that greatly reduces the impact of clone candidate attacks.
Approval voting guarantees the election of greatest possible consensus winners, when it ask voters “which alternatives do you consent to?”
Approval would vastly improve things, but has some drawbacks. Score is like Approval, but a bit more so, and then STAR takes Score and adds to it again to be an even better system.
The systems above all break two party dominance, or rather they make it impossible to enforce two party dominance. Ordinal systems on the other hand, all fall victim to Arrow’s theorem, and thus reinforce two-party dominance.
So unanimous consensus? As in, something akin to expecting the tooth fairy to come wipe for you? There’s no such system.
The closest thing is called Approval, and even with that system, there will be people who go away unhappy. Just far fewer of them than under any other voting system,
Perfect consensus only happen if there are dozens or even hundreds of people running for office, and only then if the voters have perfect knowledge of every candidate.
That’s the key difference. A tiny group of people can reach consensus, a large group literally cannot. Not when electing a representative, or even setting policy through direct voting.
i dont… i kinda think were all fucked. the only action possible here is to just keep voting lesser evil.
i used to hope, but that runs out after the first few decades
They way to fix things is voting reform. But it can’t be just any reform.
We have to ditch Ordinal voting systems. Every single one of them leads to some degree of two party dominance, with voters having to prioritize strategy over their own needs, because not doing so means they will be actively punished.
Cardinal systems are the only way to escape. Strategic voting becomes less necessary and less impactful.
My current favorite system is STAR. It takes all the great ideas of the best cardinal voting system (Score) and adds in an automatic runoff that greatly reduces the impact of clone candidate attacks.
the only voting system i endorse is consent-and-consensus
Do you mean something like Approval?
https://electowiki.org/wiki/Greatest_possible_consensus_winner
Approval would vastly improve things, but has some drawbacks. Score is like Approval, but a bit more so, and then STAR takes Score and adds to it again to be an even better system.
The systems above all break two party dominance, or rather they make it impossible to enforce two party dominance. Ordinal systems on the other hand, all fall victim to Arrow’s theorem, and thus reinforce two-party dominance.
no, i mean total consensus.
So unanimous consensus? As in, something akin to expecting the tooth fairy to come wipe for you? There’s no such system.
The closest thing is called Approval, and even with that system, there will be people who go away unhappy. Just far fewer of them than under any other voting system,
Perfect consensus only happen if there are dozens or even hundreds of people running for office, and only then if the voters have perfect knowledge of every candidate.
lots of groups practice consensus.
Small groups. Not large nations.
That’s the key difference. A tiny group of people can reach consensus, a large group literally cannot. Not when electing a representative, or even setting policy through direct voting.
>large nations.
>electing a representative, or even setting policy through direct voting.
i don’t like those things.