3 ms·
Terrible, like the "jungle primaries" used in California. These systems are ostensibly biased towards moderate candidates, but when there are no moderates as i
by rectang 8y ago
Terrible, like the "jungle primaries" used in California.
These systems are ostensibly biased towards moderate candidates, but when there are no moderates as in these days of wildly antagonistic partisanship, the result is disenfranchisement.
Instant runoff is vastly superior in terms of allowing people to express their voting preferences.
- leot 8y agoNo. Check this out: http://rangevoting.org/BayRegsFig.html http://rangevoting.org/BayRegsFig.html
- hackinthebochs 8y ago>but when there are no moderates as in these days of wildly antagonistic partisanship But the candidates we have are a reflection of the voting system. That is to say, hyperpartisanship is a feature of FPTP and so our candidates are a reflection of that. A voting system that rewards moderates will bring about more moderate politics.
- rectang 8y agoAre proportional systems "hyperpartisan"? Biasing towards supposed "moderation" marginalizes a broad range of the citizenry outside the mainstream and breeds cynicism and fury. Even if they cannot command a policy-enacting majority, minority opinions deserve a voice. People should be allowed to vote for representatives who actually represent them!
- hackinthebochs 8y agoProportional systems means that a position gets representation in government in proportion to the distribution of that position in the population (to varying degrees). This is the most anyone has any right to expect. >People should be allowed to vote for representatives who actually represent them! People need to stop seeing voting as some kind of identity affirmation.