4 ms·

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

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
      What you're calling "coalition building", I think of as "consensus building". And not only do I think of it as important, I think that it is literally the job of elected officials, especially after they've been elected. Right now I don't even see coalitions being built by major political parties. I see political organization being transmogrified into factions and enemies. I recognize that there are millions of dedicated activists and organizers who are building coalitions, building consensus, reworking political narratives. For all that human effort to be channeled through the grimey distorting lens of left and right... Its wasteful at best. I absolutely agree that issues are what's important. Unhooking the issues from the gridlock of corrupt political establishments would give elected officials the freedom to build consensus beyond the coersion of corrupted political parties.
reddytowns 10y ago
Voting for the third party candidate when it doesn't matter, (since you are not in a swing state), is not a strong message at all. Come back when you have some skin in the game. Everyone looks at the president as some kind of be-all, end-all, but it isn't. Informed voting on candidates in lower level of government who has opinions that are more in line of your own, can then go on to shape the political landscape further on in their career.
- macawfish 10y ago
  Damned if I do, damned if I don't.
WillPostForFood 10y ago
For people wondering, Paul Wellstone died in a plane crash. No evidence of it being anything other than an accident. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wellstone#Death https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wellstone#Death

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
    What you're calling "coalition building", I think of as "consensus building". And not only do I think of it as important, I think that it is literally the job of elected officials, especially after they've been elected. Right now I don't even see coalitions being built by major political parties. I see political organization being transmogrified into factions and enemies. I recognize that there are millions of dedicated activists and organizers who are building coalitions, building consensus, reworking political narratives. For all that human effort to be channeled through the grimey distorting lens of left and right... Its wasteful at best. I absolutely agree that issues are what's important. Unhooking the issues from the gridlock of corrupt political establishments would give elected officials the freedom to build consensus beyond the coersion of corrupted political parties.

reddytowns 10y ago

Voting for the third party candidate when it doesn't matter, (since you are not in a swing state), is not a strong message at all. Come back when you have some skin in the game. Everyone looks at the president as some kind of be-all, end-all, but it isn't. Informed voting on candidates in lower level of government who has opinions that are more in line of your own, can then go on to shape the political landscape further on in their career.

macawfish 10y ago
Damned if I do, damned if I don't.

WillPostForFood 10y ago

For people wondering, Paul Wellstone died in a plane crash. No evidence of it being anything other than an accident. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wellstone#Death https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wellstone#Death