3 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoI 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.