7 ms·
Approval voting seems like a great way to make sure we only ever elect bland, inoffensive candidates with carefully focus-group calibrated opinions and policies
by mseebach 8y ago
Approval voting seems like a great way to make sure we only ever elect bland, inoffensive candidates with carefully focus-group calibrated opinions and policies, whom once in office, should they care for reelection, will steer clear of touching any even mildly controversial subjects.
- zoul 8y agoSounds like an improvement.
- filleduchaos 8y agoOf course it sounds like an improvement when those controversial issues have never affected you. Who cares about all the people they do affect though?
- sanxiyn 8y agoVoting methods should reflect the will of people. Voting method is not the tool to get your pet issues done.
- nerdponx 8y agocarefully focus-group calibrated opinions and policies, whom once in office, should they care for reelection, will steer clear of touching any even mildly controversial subjects This happens nowadays anyway.
- leot 8y agoThat sounds amazing.
- MBCook 8y agoConsistency and planning seem like an improvement from the current system of reversing every policy that the last guy put in every 4-8 years.
- ng12 8y agoThis already happens in decidedly Red/Blue states. They're full of incumbents that nobody really cares to keep in but, more importantly, nobody cares to vote out.
- robertwiblin 8y agoAs some commenters point out, it's not clear whether that's a good or bad thing. But approval voting would broaden out the conversation by allowing more heterodox parties to attract a significant fraction of the vote, reflecting their actual support, rather than just an artificially low 0-3%.
- terravion 8y agoBut that's exactly what's missing from all this discussion of voting systems, if the US and UK are your examples of "failed" democracies these experts obviously haven't considered the full range of how voting works. Living in a city that has instant run off voting it is clear that first past the post has some important advantages that voting system gurus seem to discount--namely it forces pre-negotiation and coalitions before questions are put to the voters. It is impossible for a voting system to inquire what the will of the body politic is on all questions as all times like it is an oracle--but if you construct a system that poses choose A or B question and there's education (campaigning) around that choice, the electorate can make a reasonably informed decision about whether A or B is better. Viewing voters as a static oracle to be consulted misses the whole point which is to actually get the electorate to make a decision since all things are not possible and government inevitably picks policies that favor some interests over others. In fact, suppression of heterodox policy party ideas in policy making (while protecting their expression through a strong 1st amendment) seems like one of the greatest features (not a bug) of US democracy.
- AnimalMuppet 8y agoI think that the citizens have kind of lost the whole idea of "representative". Voters now want to send people to Congress who will carry out a specific agenda. But the idea of a representative is that you were sending someone with (more or less) your general views, and they would use their own judgment. This whole "pre-negotiation and coalitions before questions are put to the voters" might be more the problem than the solution.
- mseebach 8y ago
- maxxxxx 8y agoI am fine with bland candidates. Much better than extreme.
- aaronhamlin 8y agoCandidates who don’t take strong stances or don’t take stances at all are unlikely to be acceptable to many voters. A consensus candidate of the kind approval voting would prefer is not the same as a candidate who fills the lowest common denominator.