4 ms·

In a pluralistic, democratic society you don't get to have everything go your way. You have to compromise with your fellow citizens to adopt the policies least

In a pluralistic, democratic society you don't get to have everything go your way. You have to compromise with your fellow citizens to adopt the policies least-objectionable to the most people. A fifth or sixth major candidate in the election with exactly your political views is almost exactly as superfluous as three hundred million candidates, so each of us gets a candidate with exactly our views and we don't have to compromise at all when voting. Figure out which of your beliefs and views are most important and which you're willing to compromise on. Or get used to being a very bitter member of a pluralistic democratic society.

macawfish 10y ago
It's very well established that the U.S. federal electoral system is game-theoretically "rigged", to use Trump's words. I want proportional representation, not this phoney pluralism. I'm talking about something beyond "ranked choice". I want serious mathematical, scientific rigor to be applied in developing a new voting system that is humane and practically secure from gaming in the 21st century. To be perfectly frank, my internal reaction to your comment was infuriation. Don't take it personally, just know that I'm "triggered" by this kind of patronizing political attitude that has marginalized me out of the conversation since before I even became eligible to vote. I know I'm not alone in that. There are thousands of representatives local and federal levels. It's not unreasonable for people like me to be asking for a less "compromising" process. I'm from Minnesota, and I remember when I was 17 and Paul Wellstone was killed, very possibly assassinated, before the Iraq war vote. Meanwhile, many of my classmates, children of politically established Minnesotans, told me that a vote for Ralph Nader was just short of treason. I'm writing this comment right now to say that I reject these kinds of attitudes entirely. On the contrary, people falling in behind these busted-ass mainstream parties should be grateful that, given the state of U.S. politics, we even have political participation from marginalized positions at all. This election is an indictment on this split populism of the establishment 2-party. The U.S. political process needs to evolve in a serious way or it's going to result in social/political/spiritual upheaval... for better or worse. I know it might sound irrational to you, but I'm getting ready to vote for Jill Stein right now. I am not "a liberal". I see no good reason, at this point, to vote for either of the "two choices". Seeing as how I'm not in a swing state, it strikes almost me as duty to vote against the two parties. Maybe if I lived in Florida, I'd vote for Clinton. But right now my "strategic vote" is to send a strong warning to the DFL establishment that they need to take voting reform very seriously.
- saalweachter 10y ago
  I'm not using pluralism does not refer to the voting system but to the population. The United States has a population with a diverse range of beliefs, with no strong homogeneous majority. Some people like thin crust pizza, some people like thick crust pizza. Some people think the sauce goes on top of the cheese, some people think you can make a pizza without any cheese or sauce, some people think pineapple is an acceptable pizza topping. The problem isn't the voting system, the problem is naively thinking that a significant number of your countrymen agree with you in every significant way, regardless of whether you fall on the left, right or middle.
  - macawfish 10y ago
    So the political system should reflect that diversity and leverage it as a strength, not as a way to divide people against one another. Right now, the voting system is mechanically dividing the country against itself into two groups that don't really exist. Meanwhile, various corporate, media and political interests are capitalizing on this machinery in less than honorable ways. This is enabled by the voting system on a foundational level. The other stuff, campaign finance law, media cultivation of ignorance, lobbying, etc... it's all very important, but it's all underpinned by the voting system itself.
    - saalweachter 10y ago
      Pining for a new voting system is just pushing the hard work of coalition-building to after an election instead of before, and pretending that the coalition building isn't important to boot. You could certainly rework the voting system so that a wider mix of parties are elected to Congress (and every other level of government), but then what? At the end of the day, parties aren't important, policy is important, and enacting policy still requires some sort of majority. A majority, when you don't have a homogeneous population with largely similar views on everything, still requires some sort of coalition. And the coalitions you build affect the policies you can enact. So how will changing the voting system, either to your current favorite or to some hypothetical, not-yet-invented voting system affect coalition building and the sort of policy that will be enacted?

macawfish 10y ago

It's very well established that the U.S. federal electoral system is game-theoretically "rigged", to use Trump's words. I want proportional representation, not this phoney pluralism. I'm talking about something beyond "ranked choice". I want serious mathematical, scientific rigor to be applied in developing a new voting system that is humane and practically secure from gaming in the 21st century. To be perfectly frank, my internal reaction to your comment was infuriation. Don't take it personally, just know that I'm "triggered" by this kind of patronizing political attitude that has marginalized me out of the conversation since before I even became eligible to vote. I know I'm not alone in that. There are thousands of representatives local and federal levels. It's not unreasonable for people like me to be asking for a less "compromising" process. I'm from Minnesota, and I remember when I was 17 and Paul Wellstone was killed, very possibly assassinated, before the Iraq war vote. Meanwhile, many of my classmates, children of politically established Minnesotans, told me that a vote for Ralph Nader was just short of treason. I'm writing this comment right now to say that I reject these kinds of attitudes entirely. On the contrary, people falling in behind these busted-ass mainstream parties should be grateful that, given the state of U.S. politics, we even have political participation from marginalized positions at all. This election is an indictment on this split populism of the establishment 2-party. The U.S. political process needs to evolve in a serious way or it's going to result in social/political/spiritual upheaval... for better or worse. I know it might sound irrational to you, but I'm getting ready to vote for Jill Stein right now. I am not "a liberal". I see no good reason, at this point, to vote for either of the "two choices". Seeing as how I'm not in a swing state, it strikes almost me as duty to vote against the two parties. Maybe if I lived in Florida, I'd vote for Clinton. But right now my "strategic vote" is to send a strong warning to the DFL establishment that they need to take voting reform very seriously.

saalweachter 10y ago
I'm not using pluralism does not refer to the voting system but to the population. The United States has a population with a diverse range of beliefs, with no strong homogeneous majority. Some people like thin crust pizza, some people like thick crust pizza. Some people think the sauce goes on top of the cheese, some people think you can make a pizza without any cheese or sauce, some people think pineapple is an acceptable pizza topping. The problem isn't the voting system, the problem is naively thinking that a significant number of your countrymen agree with you in every significant way, regardless of whether you fall on the left, right or middle.
- macawfish 10y ago
  So the political system should reflect that diversity and leverage it as a strength, not as a way to divide people against one another. Right now, the voting system is mechanically dividing the country against itself into two groups that don't really exist. Meanwhile, various corporate, media and political interests are capitalizing on this machinery in less than honorable ways. This is enabled by the voting system on a foundational level. The other stuff, campaign finance law, media cultivation of ignorance, lobbying, etc... it's all very important, but it's all underpinned by the voting system itself.
  - saalweachter 10y ago
    Pining for a new voting system is just pushing the hard work of coalition-building to after an election instead of before, and pretending that the coalition building isn't important to boot. You could certainly rework the voting system so that a wider mix of parties are elected to Congress (and every other level of government), but then what? At the end of the day, parties aren't important, policy is important, and enacting policy still requires some sort of majority. A majority, when you don't have a homogeneous population with largely similar views on everything, still requires some sort of coalition. And the coalitions you build affect the policies you can enact. So how will changing the voting system, either to your current favorite or to some hypothetical, not-yet-invented voting system affect coalition building and the sort of policy that will be enacted?