5 ms·

That's what a democracy is all about, isn't it? Isn't it insane how close the race between G.W. Bush and Al Gore was in 2000? Consider the consequences of that

by cisstrd 10y ago

That's what a democracy is all about, isn't it? Isn't it insane how close the race between G.W. Bush and Al Gore was in 2000? Consider the consequences of that decision for a moment. And the voter turnout was only 51.2% in that election, not ~70%. Saying that in the end a small amount of voters make all the difference, that's true in so many cases... At least regarding the Brexit-vote no one can complain that there wasn't a discussion about the issues, everyone spoke out, politicians, musicians, actors, companies, banks, ... and the people were bombarded with information and arguments for months. And the people have spoken. (Others have pointed out that this is not legally binding, true, but it's certainly going to happen. There is no other viable way at this point)

quadrangle 10y ago
Absolutely not. Democracy means decisions made by the people. There's NOTHING about the concept of Democracy that requires using THE WORST possible method of decision-making, i.e. majority rule yes/no. There's all sorts of other ways to make collective decisions such as score voting, consensus, requiring approval from a combination of stakeholders (such as in a case like this requiring that all parts of the UK all approve), and so on. Majority rule brings tyranny of the majority and is the worst way to run a democracy.
- randyrand 10y ago
  Score voting does not really work with 2 choices. Requiring all 'parts' of the UK to agree would not work well either. Do you do it by state? County? City? Person? If by state, why? 100% required for change means its tyrany of the minority. So it's really no better. The problem is we don't know of a better way than FPTP for decisions like these.
  - makomk 10y ago
    In reality, staying in or leaving the EU is a lot more complicated than a simple two-way choice. The two most obvious paths for exit - leaving the free trade area altogether and somehow joining the EFTA and retaining free trade - have less in common with each other than they do with remaining in the EU. Then there's the issue of what to do if we can't meet the Leave campaign's promises, which seems almost certain as they're self-contradictory and beyond optimistic, but couldn't be guaranteed even if they were more reasonable since so much depends on negotiations with the rest of Europe.
  - quadrangle 10y ago
    Score voting works perfectly fine with 2 choices. There's no basis to say otherwise. Consider simple realistic hypothetical: what if 10% of the pro-Brexit voters are gung-ho and 90% are only slightly leaning toward it with a lot of hesitation; and 90% of the anti-Brexit voters are strongly opposed to the Brexit? With score voting, the pro-Brexit voters can still be majority but the decision will be voted down because the pro-Brexit voters weren't as sure. Even if the majority of voters decide to vote strategically, it would make a difference. I know I would never vote extreme one side or the other on something I myself actually feel conflicted about. For clarity, instead of scoring 1-10 on "yes" as an option and 1-10 on "no" as an option, it makes more sense for yes/no votes to be on a standard strongly-disagree/disagree/somewhat-disagree/somewhat-agree etc. scale. I'm not advocating for unanimous support as a mechanism. Tyranny of the minority is shitty, yes. We absolutely know better ways that FPTP. Score voting is better, period. And just like FPTP can still put the post at higher than 50% (which is necessary for major systematic changes like this), score voting can put a requirement on what level of average score is needed to pass a measure.
    - ClayShentrup 10y ago
      0-5 or 0-9 are preferable. http://scorevoting.net/Why99.html http://scorevoting.net/Why99.html
- cisstrd 10y ago
  Good luck doing this in practice. What looks good on paper and what works in reality is not always the same. And making elections more complicated might not be the best way to go.
  - quadrangle 10y ago
    I didn't advocate for making elections more complicated. There are lots of stupid ways to get more complicated. Score voting is not complicated at all. It's the same damn thing as rating books on Amazon.com or whatever. And even a simple vote can (and in most cases DOES already) simply set the post further than 50% mark for decisions of such fundamental significance.
- Perceptes 10y ago
  I don't think you should be getting downvoted. I totally agree with this. Plurality voting is awful, and at least in the US, probably the most fundamentally broken part of politics. There's a good organization that is working to promote better voting methods, the Center for Election Science, that people should take a look at if they doubt this: https://electology.org/ https://electology.org/
dangjc 10y ago
If 51% of voters choose to murder all minorities, would that be allowed? The US has constitutionalism which requires supermajorities to effect fundamental changes. It slows down progress on issues like universal health care, but when progress is made, it is rarely rolled back.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- zghst 10y ago
  This is completely different. This is a nation voting to leave a supranational union
- Crito 10y ago
  > "If 51% of voters choose to murder all minorities, would that be allowed" If you feel the need to resort to such hyperbolic examples to make your point, then you should really reevaluate whether or not you actually have a point worth making.
  - falcojr 10y ago
    Reductio ad absurdum is a great way to prove or disprove your point is valid.
- runholm 10y ago
  Let's simply refrain from comparing leaving the EU to ethnic cleansing. Ok?
  - dangjc 10y ago
    The point is that majorities are allowed to make some decisions, not all. At the broadest level, there are rights which no majority can take away. Some fundamental changes require super majorities. Then at a geographical level, decision making can also be split. Local councils handle local affairs. Devolution allows some decisions to be made at a regional level. While many Brits bristle at decisions being made in far off Brussels, many Scots bristle at decisions made in London.
forgotpwtomain 10y ago
> And the voter turnout was only 51.2% in that election, not ~70%. Saying that in the end a small amount of voters make all the difference, that's true in so many cases... And the voter turnout in the US only matters for the 18 or so contested states - so it's misleading to talk about really..
JulianMorrison 10y ago
> That's what a democracy is all about, isn't it? I recently read a point which made a lot of sense to me: that regular, multi-party elections are much less winner-takes-all than referendums. Even if they aren't run under proportional systems, a government can be thrown out and replaced, its policies changed, so there's always a chance for a do-over, it's always worth waiting rather than throwing a fist. A referendum, while it technically can be re-run, tends to burn out the public's willingness to listen, while decisively fixing a choice that can no longer be changed. So it's much more divisive and traumatic. So there's democracy and democracy, basically. And they aren't the same.

by cisstrd 10y ago

quadrangle 10y ago

Absolutely not. Democracy means decisions made by the people. There's NOTHING about the concept of Democracy that requires using THE WORST possible method of decision-making, i.e. majority rule yes/no. There's all sorts of other ways to make collective decisions such as score voting, consensus, requiring approval from a combination of stakeholders (such as in a case like this requiring that all parts of the UK all approve), and so on. Majority rule brings tyranny of the majority and is the worst way to run a democracy.

randyrand 10y ago
Score voting does not really work with 2 choices. Requiring all 'parts' of the UK to agree would not work well either. Do you do it by state? County? City? Person? If by state, why? 100% required for change means its tyrany of the minority. So it's really no better. The problem is we don't know of a better way than FPTP for decisions like these.
- makomk 10y ago
  In reality, staying in or leaving the EU is a lot more complicated than a simple two-way choice. The two most obvious paths for exit - leaving the free trade area altogether and somehow joining the EFTA and retaining free trade - have less in common with each other than they do with remaining in the EU. Then there's the issue of what to do if we can't meet the Leave campaign's promises, which seems almost certain as they're self-contradictory and beyond optimistic, but couldn't be guaranteed even if they were more reasonable since so much depends on negotiations with the rest of Europe.
- quadrangle 10y ago
  Score voting works perfectly fine with 2 choices. There's no basis to say otherwise. Consider simple realistic hypothetical: what if 10% of the pro-Brexit voters are gung-ho and 90% are only slightly leaning toward it with a lot of hesitation; and 90% of the anti-Brexit voters are strongly opposed to the Brexit? With score voting, the pro-Brexit voters can still be majority but the decision will be voted down because the pro-Brexit voters weren't as sure. Even if the majority of voters decide to vote strategically, it would make a difference. I know I would never vote extreme one side or the other on something I myself actually feel conflicted about. For clarity, instead of scoring 1-10 on "yes" as an option and 1-10 on "no" as an option, it makes more sense for yes/no votes to be on a standard strongly-disagree/disagree/somewhat-disagree/somewhat-agree etc. scale. I'm not advocating for unanimous support as a mechanism. Tyranny of the minority is shitty, yes. We absolutely know better ways that FPTP. Score voting is better, period. And just like FPTP can still put the post at higher than 50% (which is necessary for major systematic changes like this), score voting can put a requirement on what level of average score is needed to pass a measure.
  - ClayShentrup 10y ago
    0-5 or 0-9 are preferable. http://scorevoting.net/Why99.html http://scorevoting.net/Why99.html
cisstrd 10y ago
Good luck doing this in practice. What looks good on paper and what works in reality is not always the same. And making elections more complicated might not be the best way to go.
- quadrangle 10y ago
  I didn't advocate for making elections more complicated. There are lots of stupid ways to get more complicated. Score voting is not complicated at all. It's the same damn thing as rating books on Amazon.com or whatever. And even a simple vote can (and in most cases DOES already) simply set the post further than 50% mark for decisions of such fundamental significance.
Perceptes 10y ago
I don't think you should be getting downvoted. I totally agree with this. Plurality voting is awful, and at least in the US, probably the most fundamentally broken part of politics. There's a good organization that is working to promote better voting methods, the Center for Election Science, that people should take a look at if they doubt this: https://electology.org/ https://electology.org/

dangjc 10y ago

If 51% of voters choose to murder all minorities, would that be allowed? The US has constitutionalism which requires supermajorities to effect fundamental changes. It slows down progress on issues like universal health care, but when progress is made, it is rarely rolled back.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
zghst 10y ago
This is completely different. This is a nation voting to leave a supranational union
Crito 10y ago
> "If 51% of voters choose to murder all minorities, would that be allowed" If you feel the need to resort to such hyperbolic examples to make your point, then you should really reevaluate whether or not you actually have a point worth making.
- falcojr 10y ago
  Reductio ad absurdum is a great way to prove or disprove your point is valid.
runholm 10y ago
Let's simply refrain from comparing leaving the EU to ethnic cleansing. Ok?
- dangjc 10y ago
  The point is that majorities are allowed to make some decisions, not all. At the broadest level, there are rights which no majority can take away. Some fundamental changes require super majorities. Then at a geographical level, decision making can also be split. Local councils handle local affairs. Devolution allows some decisions to be made at a regional level. While many Brits bristle at decisions being made in far off Brussels, many Scots bristle at decisions made in London.

forgotpwtomain 10y ago

> And the voter turnout was only 51.2% in that election, not ~70%. Saying that in the end a small amount of voters make all the difference, that's true in so many cases... And the voter turnout in the US only matters for the 18 or so contested states - so it's misleading to talk about really..

JulianMorrison 10y ago

> That's what a democracy is all about, isn't it? I recently read a point which made a lot of sense to me: that regular, multi-party elections are much less winner-takes-all than referendums. Even if they aren't run under proportional systems, a government can be thrown out and replaced, its policies changed, so there's always a chance for a do-over, it's always worth waiting rather than throwing a fist. A referendum, while it technically can be re-run, tends to burn out the public's willingness to listen, while decisively fixing a choice that can no longer be changed. So it's much more divisive and traumatic. So there's democracy and democracy, basically. And they aren't the same.