4 ms·

> What is it with you US-people and 2 candidates?!?! It's the natural consequence of a plurality voting system. Conservatives remember H. Ross Perot spoiling

> What is it with you US-people and 2 candidates?!?! It's the natural consequence of a plurality voting system. Conservatives remember H. Ross Perot spoiling the election for George H.W. Bush, and throwing the election to Bill Clinton. Progressives remember Ralph Nader making the contest between Al Gore and George W. Bush close enough that G.W. was given the election by a Supreme Court stocked with his dad's buddies. Voting for third parties is a terrible political strategy in the United States. The spoiler effect is real. I'd go so far as to say that our plurality system all but guarantees bad candidates--it's not the fittest that survive the primary election process, it's the most memorable, the one who we feel will best appeal to our neighbors. Going further, I'd suggest that having a strong majority political belief is a major liability in U.S. elections. When Bill Clinton was elected, the nation was largely happy with the center-right GOP of the time. As a result, the further right bloc had the confidence and diversity of small differences of opinion to split and lose the whole thing. (Never minding the fact that Bill Clinton was far to the right of traditional Democrats). The same was true with Nader and Gore in 2000. Bill Clinton's policies had been so popular that people largely wanted another Clinton, but perhaps a little more progressive. Disagreement ensued as to how much more progressive, and thus we had Nader and Gore losing to the much more hawkish right-wing George W. Bush. So, in the U.S., you're best off being part of a popular political leaning, but pray your political leanings don't grow so popular as to result in a split. My personal feeling is that this country desperately needs to move past plurality voting. The easiest path to this is for states to apportion their electors based on ranked choice voting. It doesn't solve all our problems, but it does remove the spoiler effect. With luck, that would allow us to have less shrill, more substantive candidates--even if the major parties continue to dominate.

bhups 10y ago
> I'd go so far as to say that our plurality system all but guarantees bad candidates--it's not the fittest that survive the primary election process, it's the most memorable, the one who we feel will best appeal to our neighbors. Another thing that I've noticed is that it also optimizes for moderates/centrists, since that's where the Nash Equilibrium is[1]. With the growing polarization in our politics, I think that the political spectrum in the U.S. now looks less like a Gaussian distribution and more like a bimodal distribution. At this point the median voter is becoming a smaller and smaller plurality, and the equilibrium is becoming unappealing to more and more people. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_voter_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_voter_theorem
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  The idea that plurality optimized for centrists is unsupported by empirical evidence and is based on abstract theory that ignored the role of base mobilization, public communication, and imperfect information. It's basically a naïve application of rational choice theory. Also, that's precious little evidence that the US political spectrum has ever looked anything like a Gaussian distribution.
CamperBob2 10y ago
My personal feeling is that this country desperately needs to move past plurality voting. The easiest path to this is for states to apportion their electors based on ranked choice voting. It doesn't solve all our problems, but it does remove the spoiler effect. With luck, that would allow us to have less shrill, more substantive candidates--even if the major parties continue to dominate. I think you've made some insightful points here, particularly when you said "In the U.S., you're best off being part of a popular political leaning, but pray your political leanings don't grow so popular as to result in a split." This does explain a lot. However, I'd like to see some evidence that ranked-choice voting actually leads to better outcomes. I believe Australia has this system, doesn't it? They've elected some of the worst sorts of people I've ever seen in public office outside of an outright dictatorship, pushing the worst sorts of policies. My concern is that RCV-like voting strategies may encourage a tyranny of the majority to emerge. While I'm no supporter of either Jill Stein or Bernie Sanders, I do like the idea that Hillary Clinton has to worry about what they have to say, for fear of being Nadered in one or more critical swing states. Likewise, I can see the Libertarians, both big-L and small-l, having a moderating influence on the knee-jerk theocrats who would like to take over the GOP. It seems that ranked-choice voting might have the effect of removing those beneficial "spoiler effects." Just as one example, most Americans self-identify as members of the Christian faith. (Not picking on religion per se, just saying that it's probably the one cultural attribute that Americans share more widely than any others.) The same is true in Australia. There, a wave of neo-Puritanism has swept over the country, resulting in legislative micromanagement of everything from Internet censorship to the bra sizes of porn actresses. So, does ranked-choice voting inevitably lead to the emergence of a nanny state? If so, I think we're better off here in the US with the strong two-party system. If not, are there any other downsides that should be discussed before switching over to RCV?
- mhenr18 10y ago
  No, we don't have internet censorship in Australia. The idea was mooted and then shot down after backlash. That government was also voted out. We also have no such regulation regarding the breast sizes of porn actresses. The refusal of classification is done on a "We'll know it when we see it" basis, much in the same way that many US laws are interpreted. Your comments about religion are inaccurate in that we do not allow our faith to dictate our politics in the same way as the US. A 2011 Census question put Christianity at about 60%, while in the US it's at 70%. We do not have parts of the country that have a reputation for being deeply religious (unlike the American South) and we do not reference a deity of any kind in any official pledge whatsoever. We don't even have a pledge of allegiance that we force on our children in schools. Our country has real problems (i.e humanitarian treatment of refugees and the environment) but we aren't the kind of place you're talking about. Our High Court isn't a political game, our banks didn't fall apart during 07-08, and our worst terrorist attack in the past 10 years wasn't even bad enough to be considered a "mass murder" under the FBI's definitions. One key difference between Australia and the US is that our Parliament can be dismissed if they are at a gridlock. This prevents the kind of gross obstructionism that has prevented the US government from functioning properly in recent years. The other key difference is that we have compulsory voting.

bhups 10y ago

> I'd go so far as to say that our plurality system all but guarantees bad candidates--it's not the fittest that survive the primary election process, it's the most memorable, the one who we feel will best appeal to our neighbors. Another thing that I've noticed is that it also optimizes for moderates/centrists, since that's where the Nash Equilibrium is[1]. With the growing polarization in our politics, I think that the political spectrum in the U.S. now looks less like a Gaussian distribution and more like a bimodal distribution. At this point the median voter is becoming a smaller and smaller plurality, and the equilibrium is becoming unappealing to more and more people. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_voter_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_voter_theorem

dragonwriter 10y ago
The idea that plurality optimized for centrists is unsupported by empirical evidence and is based on abstract theory that ignored the role of base mobilization, public communication, and imperfect information. It's basically a naïve application of rational choice theory. Also, that's precious little evidence that the US political spectrum has ever looked anything like a Gaussian distribution.

CamperBob2 10y ago

My personal feeling is that this country desperately needs to move past plurality voting. The easiest path to this is for states to apportion their electors based on ranked choice voting. It doesn't solve all our problems, but it does remove the spoiler effect. With luck, that would allow us to have less shrill, more substantive candidates--even if the major parties continue to dominate. I think you've made some insightful points here, particularly when you said "In the U.S., you're best off being part of a popular political leaning, but pray your political leanings don't grow so popular as to result in a split." This does explain a lot. However, I'd like to see some evidence that ranked-choice voting actually leads to better outcomes. I believe Australia has this system, doesn't it? They've elected some of the worst sorts of people I've ever seen in public office outside of an outright dictatorship, pushing the worst sorts of policies. My concern is that RCV-like voting strategies may encourage a tyranny of the majority to emerge. While I'm no supporter of either Jill Stein or Bernie Sanders, I do like the idea that Hillary Clinton has to worry about what they have to say, for fear of being Nadered in one or more critical swing states. Likewise, I can see the Libertarians, both big-L and small-l, having a moderating influence on the knee-jerk theocrats who would like to take over the GOP. It seems that ranked-choice voting might have the effect of removing those beneficial "spoiler effects." Just as one example, most Americans self-identify as members of the Christian faith. (Not picking on religion per se, just saying that it's probably the one cultural attribute that Americans share more widely than any others.) The same is true in Australia. There, a wave of neo-Puritanism has swept over the country, resulting in legislative micromanagement of everything from Internet censorship to the bra sizes of porn actresses. So, does ranked-choice voting inevitably lead to the emergence of a nanny state? If so, I think we're better off here in the US with the strong two-party system. If not, are there any other downsides that should be discussed before switching over to RCV?

mhenr18 10y ago
No, we don't have internet censorship in Australia. The idea was mooted and then shot down after backlash. That government was also voted out. We also have no such regulation regarding the breast sizes of porn actresses. The refusal of classification is done on a "We'll know it when we see it" basis, much in the same way that many US laws are interpreted. Your comments about religion are inaccurate in that we do not allow our faith to dictate our politics in the same way as the US. A 2011 Census question put Christianity at about 60%, while in the US it's at 70%. We do not have parts of the country that have a reputation for being deeply religious (unlike the American South) and we do not reference a deity of any kind in any official pledge whatsoever. We don't even have a pledge of allegiance that we force on our children in schools. Our country has real problems (i.e humanitarian treatment of refugees and the environment) but we aren't the kind of place you're talking about. Our High Court isn't a political game, our banks didn't fall apart during 07-08, and our worst terrorist attack in the past 10 years wasn't even bad enough to be considered a "mass murder" under the FBI's definitions. One key difference between Australia and the US is that our Parliament can be dismissed if they are at a gridlock. This prevents the kind of gross obstructionism that has prevented the US government from functioning properly in recent years. The other key difference is that we have compulsory voting.