5 ms·

An interesting thought exercise and an explainer on how the U.S. election process works that a lot of Americans (including myself) probably didn't realize. I ap

by tswartz 10y ago

An interesting thought exercise and an explainer on how the U.S. election process works that a lot of Americans (including myself) probably didn't realize. I appreciate that the author caveats most of their statements with how statistically unlikely each of the steps for McMullin to win are. I think FiveThirtyEight coverage of the election has been very good. A side point that I took from this article is that some people talk about the potential for the U.S. to shift from a two major party system, however our election process strongly discourages it. As a result, it's highly unlikely to ever happen. Since the process for electing a President and VP go to Congress if candidates fail to win at least 270 electoral votes, I feel that the American public would be less likely to vote if the chances of Congress picking the President, assuming 3 major candidates are likely to split the electoral college vote. However, maybe that would make people pay a lot closer attention to the down-ballot races for Congress...

Svip 10y ago
I think the problem with the US system is that there is too much emphasis on the President. The office is important, but it's not all powerful. It's not that the presidency itself needs to be available to more than two parties, but seats in Congress as well as state legislatures should be. Indeed, a party-list proportional representation for the state legislatures would strongly encourage minority parties to obtain seats, as votes cast for a party not winning in one's district would be go on to matter on the state-wide level. As for the presidency, a worthy consideration could be how France elects their president. Their system is a two round system. In the first round, anyone who is eligible can be on the ballot. But if no candidate receives more than 50% of the votes (not electors), it goes onto the second round, where the two candidates with the most votes are the only ones on the ballot. In practical terms, only two parties in modern France have held the presidency, but at least each presidency was elected by a majority of the voters. Plus France's parliament and senate contains members from parties that never get the presidency itself. Another place to look could be your neighbour to the North, that practically has three main parties: NPD, Tories and Labour. Of course, Canada is a parliamentary system, so they don't have a strong executive branch like the US. But you are not wrong, it's the US election system that encourages the two party system. But what I truly wonder is why each state basically maintains the same system as every other state.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  The states maintain their systems because there are 2 parties that exercise a lot of influence in state politics. I've thought about trying to start a ballot initiative to remove parties from the ballot process. Each candidate would have to generate sufficient support to get their name on the ballot, no other rules. Organized groups like parties would be useful under those rules, but an independent wouldn't be at a legal disadvantage compared to a member of an incumbent party (as is the case in many states today).
  - Svip 10y ago
    I think Sir Humphrey said it best, 'no government would change a system that put it there'. While your initiative is well meant, abandoning parties is actually a step in the wrong direction. Because while parties won't appear on the ballot, the parties will make sure to include their name and their candidate in every advertisement, so only few voters are unsure whom each candidate represents. Likely washing away other parties' chances as they don't maintain the same influence. No, party-list proportional representation is a much more democracy and fairer system. Because it allows a voter to vote for a party that's not popular in their district, but so that their vote can matter on a state-wide or national-wide level. Of course, that's a major overhaul of the system, but unfortunately, I personally believe that's what necessary. However, I believe that such an overhaul could start in smaller more progressive states like Vermont or Maine. And if the system catches on, there may be public push for a similar system in neighbouring states.
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      The point isn't to detach the parties from the candidates, it's to make it so that party infighting is not the strongest path to the ballot. At the moment, winning a party knife fight is the thing that decides lots of local and state office elections. For the presidential election there would be more risk of pushing the election to the House of Representatives, but candidates could bargain with each other and withdraw and such. People would be able to figure it out.
    - 10y ago
specialist 10y ago
"shift from a two major party system" Would require a change from our first past the post (FPTP) voting system to something like approval voting. (Or proportional representation for assemblies.) Duverger's Law suggests that plurality systems (like FPTP) results in a two party system, because candidates (belligerents) all try to form the smallest winning coalition. FWIW, I strongly prefer approval voting. Easy to explain, tabulate. A lot more fair. Preference-based systems discourage mudslinging. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting
- ClayShentrup 10y ago
  http://asitoughttobe.com/2010/07/18/score-voting/ http://asitoughttobe.com/2010/07/18/score-voting/
- ClayShentrup 10y ago
  Duverger's Law says that Plurality Voting (specifically) leads to two-party domination. http://scorevoting.net/DuvTrans.html http://scorevoting.net/DuvTrans.html
anigbrowl 10y ago
All this talk of a 'two party system' is kinda nonsense. Yeah, first-past the post voting encourages the emergence of two main parties but there is absolutely nothing to prevent the emergence of a third party besides bad strategy. Neither the Greens nor the Libertarians (the two best-known alternatives) put any serious effort into getting anyone elected to Congress that I can see. That it's possible to get elected to Congress without the support of a major party is proved by the existence of independent representatives and senators. If they can get elected as individuals, there's no reason that they can't get elected as members of a minority party...but Congressional races are boring so neither party seems willing to invest much effort in doing so. This cycle, Libertarian Gary Johnson was polling well enough that he had a prospect of getting into one of the debates (hitting 13% in several polls, with the threshold for inclusion in the Presidential debate being 15% - I don't approve of this arbitrary rule, but at least it's a known factor in advance. But then in a series of interviews he demonstrated how foolish he was - ignorant of Aleppo in Syria, a major global flash point for a few years now, unable to name a single foreign leader he admires even slightly, and finally giving an interview where he said he could go into the debates without saying a word and still improve his standing before sticking his tongue out at the reporter and performing an impression of Donald Duck (as best I can guess). The guy is just clown shoes and nobody has sidelined him this year except himself. As for his party conference, it was mainly memorable for one candidate for party chairman performing a strip tease on stage, presumably to win a bet or as a prank. Is it any wonder voters don't take them seriously? Jill Stein of the greens is little better and seems more interested in publicity stunts than promoting a platform or getting anyone else into Congress. The real reason (IMO) is that if you seriously want to influence politics it is far more efficient to sponsor ballot initiatives in states that allow them and lobby in other states and at the federal level. Why waste money on getting someone elected when you can just buy off a politician from one of the major parties? Anyone who has enough money to actually underwrite a party already knows this and so has little or no incentive to spend years and multiple election campaigns trying to build a political platform, especially given that the Democrats and Republicans are quite willing to sell their principles so cheaply. the people with the political will have no money and the people with the money have no incentive. It's not impossible, it just takes time. I estimate that with a starting pot of $5-10m and 10 years I could build a minority party in the US Congress. An even better prospect given the parlous state of the Republican party would be to simply drive a wedge into it after this election, subvert the least powerful side. adn just hijack the leadership after 5 years or so, which is basically what the Tea Party has done to the GOP.
551199 10y ago
Fivethirtyeight is anything but balanced as you might expect from a company that is Clinton's biggest donor. See Taleb's tweet storm of their methodology: https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/762032883414556674 https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/762032883414556674
- TylerE 10y ago
  Got any of dem fire unskewed polls dude?
- Lewton 10y ago
  I don't get it Taleb doesn't seem to be talking about 538s actual prediction, the polls plus model on the site, he's talking about swings from 50% to 20% 538 has not swung that hard at all
ende 10y ago
If the electoral vote were split across a multi-party ballot via plurality voting, then yeah that would often be the case. The winner take all system of allotting electors that is used by most states might mitigate that. That is exactly what disincentivizes third party / independent candidates though. What would be better is to use IRV at the state level to allocate electors proportionally. That would still increase the probability of elections going to the house. It's funny how we see that as a bad thing considering it's how most modern democracies elect their chief of state. But maybe instead of adopting the parliamentary method wholesale we could just borrow the coalition building factor when no party has a majority. That is, if no candidate had the required number of electors, they could acquire the electors of another candidate in exchange for VP or a cabinet position. Constitutional hurdles not withstanding.

by tswartz 10y ago

Svip 10y ago

I think the problem with the US system is that there is too much emphasis on the President. The office is important, but it's not all powerful. It's not that the presidency itself needs to be available to more than two parties, but seats in Congress as well as state legislatures should be. Indeed, a party-list proportional representation for the state legislatures would strongly encourage minority parties to obtain seats, as votes cast for a party not winning in one's district would be go on to matter on the state-wide level. As for the presidency, a worthy consideration could be how France elects their president. Their system is a two round system. In the first round, anyone who is eligible can be on the ballot. But if no candidate receives more than 50% of the votes (not electors), it goes onto the second round, where the two candidates with the most votes are the only ones on the ballot. In practical terms, only two parties in modern France have held the presidency, but at least each presidency was elected by a majority of the voters. Plus France's parliament and senate contains members from parties that never get the presidency itself. Another place to look could be your neighbour to the North, that practically has three main parties: NPD, Tories and Labour. Of course, Canada is a parliamentary system, so they don't have a strong executive branch like the US. But you are not wrong, it's the US election system that encourages the two party system. But what I truly wonder is why each state basically maintains the same system as every other state.

maxerickson 10y ago
The states maintain their systems because there are 2 parties that exercise a lot of influence in state politics. I've thought about trying to start a ballot initiative to remove parties from the ballot process. Each candidate would have to generate sufficient support to get their name on the ballot, no other rules. Organized groups like parties would be useful under those rules, but an independent wouldn't be at a legal disadvantage compared to a member of an incumbent party (as is the case in many states today).
- Svip 10y ago
  I think Sir Humphrey said it best, 'no government would change a system that put it there'. While your initiative is well meant, abandoning parties is actually a step in the wrong direction. Because while parties won't appear on the ballot, the parties will make sure to include their name and their candidate in every advertisement, so only few voters are unsure whom each candidate represents. Likely washing away other parties' chances as they don't maintain the same influence. No, party-list proportional representation is a much more democracy and fairer system. Because it allows a voter to vote for a party that's not popular in their district, but so that their vote can matter on a state-wide or national-wide level. Of course, that's a major overhaul of the system, but unfortunately, I personally believe that's what necessary. However, I believe that such an overhaul could start in smaller more progressive states like Vermont or Maine. And if the system catches on, there may be public push for a similar system in neighbouring states.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    The point isn't to detach the parties from the candidates, it's to make it so that party infighting is not the strongest path to the ballot. At the moment, winning a party knife fight is the thing that decides lots of local and state office elections. For the presidential election there would be more risk of pushing the election to the House of Representatives, but candidates could bargain with each other and withdraw and such. People would be able to figure it out.
  - 10y ago

specialist 10y ago

"shift from a two major party system" Would require a change from our first past the post (FPTP) voting system to something like approval voting. (Or proportional representation for assemblies.) Duverger's Law suggests that plurality systems (like FPTP) results in a two party system, because candidates (belligerents) all try to form the smallest winning coalition. FWIW, I strongly prefer approval voting. Easy to explain, tabulate. A lot more fair. Preference-based systems discourage mudslinging. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting

ClayShentrup 10y ago
http://asitoughttobe.com/2010/07/18/score-voting/ http://asitoughttobe.com/2010/07/18/score-voting/
ClayShentrup 10y ago
Duverger's Law says that Plurality Voting (specifically) leads to two-party domination. http://scorevoting.net/DuvTrans.html http://scorevoting.net/DuvTrans.html

anigbrowl 10y ago

All this talk of a 'two party system' is kinda nonsense. Yeah, first-past the post voting encourages the emergence of two main parties but there is absolutely nothing to prevent the emergence of a third party besides bad strategy. Neither the Greens nor the Libertarians (the two best-known alternatives) put any serious effort into getting anyone elected to Congress that I can see. That it's possible to get elected to Congress without the support of a major party is proved by the existence of independent representatives and senators. If they can get elected as individuals, there's no reason that they can't get elected as members of a minority party...but Congressional races are boring so neither party seems willing to invest much effort in doing so. This cycle, Libertarian Gary Johnson was polling well enough that he had a prospect of getting into one of the debates (hitting 13% in several polls, with the threshold for inclusion in the Presidential debate being 15% - I don't approve of this arbitrary rule, but at least it's a known factor in advance. But then in a series of interviews he demonstrated how foolish he was - ignorant of Aleppo in Syria, a major global flash point for a few years now, unable to name a single foreign leader he admires even slightly, and finally giving an interview where he said he could go into the debates without saying a word and still improve his standing before sticking his tongue out at the reporter and performing an impression of Donald Duck (as best I can guess). The guy is just clown shoes and nobody has sidelined him this year except himself. As for his party conference, it was mainly memorable for one candidate for party chairman performing a strip tease on stage, presumably to win a bet or as a prank. Is it any wonder voters don't take them seriously? Jill Stein of the greens is little better and seems more interested in publicity stunts than promoting a platform or getting anyone else into Congress. The real reason (IMO) is that if you seriously want to influence politics it is far more efficient to sponsor ballot initiatives in states that allow them and lobby in other states and at the federal level. Why waste money on getting someone elected when you can just buy off a politician from one of the major parties? Anyone who has enough money to actually underwrite a party already knows this and so has little or no incentive to spend years and multiple election campaigns trying to build a political platform, especially given that the Democrats and Republicans are quite willing to sell their principles so cheaply. the people with the political will have no money and the people with the money have no incentive. It's not impossible, it just takes time. I estimate that with a starting pot of $5-10m and 10 years I could build a minority party in the US Congress. An even better prospect given the parlous state of the Republican party would be to simply drive a wedge into it after this election, subvert the least powerful side. adn just hijack the leadership after 5 years or so, which is basically what the Tea Party has done to the GOP.

551199 10y ago

Fivethirtyeight is anything but balanced as you might expect from a company that is Clinton's biggest donor. See Taleb's tweet storm of their methodology: https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/762032883414556674 https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/762032883414556674

TylerE 10y ago
Got any of dem fire unskewed polls dude?
Lewton 10y ago
I don't get it Taleb doesn't seem to be talking about 538s actual prediction, the polls plus model on the site, he's talking about swings from 50% to 20% 538 has not swung that hard at all

ende 10y ago

If the electoral vote were split across a multi-party ballot via plurality voting, then yeah that would often be the case. The winner take all system of allotting electors that is used by most states might mitigate that. That is exactly what disincentivizes third party / independent candidates though. What would be better is to use IRV at the state level to allocate electors proportionally. That would still increase the probability of elections going to the house. It's funny how we see that as a bad thing considering it's how most modern democracies elect their chief of state. But maybe instead of adopting the parliamentary method wholesale we could just borrow the coalition building factor when no party has a majority. That is, if no candidate had the required number of electors, they could acquire the electors of another candidate in exchange for VP or a cabinet position. Constitutional hurdles not withstanding.