4 ms·

It's definitely not Pareto efficient. If you're a member of the party establishment in one of the big two parties of a system, you stand to lose a lot by movin

by zeroer 10y ago

It's definitely not Pareto efficient. If you're a member of the party establishment in one of the big two parties of a system, you stand to lose a lot by moving to an instant runoff and nothing to gain. Unfortunately, most of the power to change the voting system is in the hands of these kinds of people, so it's going to be pretty hard to change it. Kind of a Catch-22.

stanleydrew 10y ago
Why are we considering the preferences of the parties? We're talking about the most efficient way to allow the electorate to express its representational preferences. I understand that things get a bit muddled because the individual representatives are also members of the electorate, and thus they may have warped incentives relative to the vast majority. But they are such a small fraction of the overall electorate that we should be able to ignore them in any kind of efficiency discussion.
- cbr 10y ago
  "Pareto efficiency" is a very strong claim, and it's invalidated by any single individual doing worse.
  - stanleydrew 10y ago
    You seem to be missing the point. Or perhaps we are talking about two different things? I am talking about the efficiency of the voting system itself, and its ability to express the preferences of the electorate. Note that I'm not talking about changes related to the election outcomes that such a shift in voting systems would potentially cause.
- zeroer 10y ago
  > Why are we considering the preferences of the parties? I mentioned it because you said something about Pareto efficiency, and moving to instant runoff would not be Pareto efficient because some people (the parties are made up of people, remember) would be worse off. Declaring something Pareto efficient has a specific meaning, and it applies to all people, not all the people that stanleydrew thinks are important. Though it's a comparatively small number of people, it's not some weird edge case that can be discounted. Rather, these are precisely the best people to convince to get the law changed. Note well that even this story in Maine, the measure was passed by ballot initiative, not by a legislature vote.
  - stanleydrew 10y ago
    I wrote this in a sibling reply, but I'll post it here too. Perhaps we are talking about two different things? I am talking about the efficiency of the voting system itself, and its ability to express the preferences of the electorate. Note that I'm not talking about changes related to the election outcomes that such a shift in voting systems would potentially cause. Put another way, it would seem to be efficient to move to any voting system that would allow a voter to express more preferences than just one, since then we're getting strictly more information.
- r00fus 10y ago
  The same reason we care about the rights of multinational corporations when it comes to voting on things that concern them - they have lots of entrenched power and/or money so ignoring them is unwise and unrealistic.

by zeroer 10y ago

stanleydrew 10y ago

Why are we considering the preferences of the parties? We're talking about the most efficient way to allow the electorate to express its representational preferences. I understand that things get a bit muddled because the individual representatives are also members of the electorate, and thus they may have warped incentives relative to the vast majority. But they are such a small fraction of the overall electorate that we should be able to ignore them in any kind of efficiency discussion.

cbr 10y ago
"Pareto efficiency" is a very strong claim, and it's invalidated by any single individual doing worse.
- stanleydrew 10y ago
  You seem to be missing the point. Or perhaps we are talking about two different things? I am talking about the efficiency of the voting system itself, and its ability to express the preferences of the electorate. Note that I'm not talking about changes related to the election outcomes that such a shift in voting systems would potentially cause.
zeroer 10y ago
> Why are we considering the preferences of the parties? I mentioned it because you said something about Pareto efficiency, and moving to instant runoff would not be Pareto efficient because some people (the parties are made up of people, remember) would be worse off. Declaring something Pareto efficient has a specific meaning, and it applies to all people, not all the people that stanleydrew thinks are important. Though it's a comparatively small number of people, it's not some weird edge case that can be discounted. Rather, these are precisely the best people to convince to get the law changed. Note well that even this story in Maine, the measure was passed by ballot initiative, not by a legislature vote.
- stanleydrew 10y ago
  I wrote this in a sibling reply, but I'll post it here too. Perhaps we are talking about two different things? I am talking about the efficiency of the voting system itself, and its ability to express the preferences of the electorate. Note that I'm not talking about changes related to the election outcomes that such a shift in voting systems would potentially cause. Put another way, it would seem to be efficient to move to any voting system that would allow a voter to express more preferences than just one, since then we're getting strictly more information.
r00fus 10y ago
The same reason we care about the rights of multinational corporations when it comes to voting on things that concern them - they have lots of entrenched power and/or money so ignoring them is unwise and unrealistic.