3 ms·

From blog: The further to the right a voting method is, the more it "maximizes happiness" for the voters Why should group satisfaction with the winner be the

From blog: The further to the right a voting method is, the more it "maximizes happiness" for the voters Why should group satisfaction with the winner be the important metric? Surely good governance should be the most important metric. If the quality of government is too hard to measure then length of time before overthrow or revolution should be a good proxy.

SubiculumCode 8y ago
Good governance is a loaded term. Good for who? Different stakeholders will frequently have opposing goals, desires, and needs. Cutting foodstamps program helps some by lowering taxes, but hurts others who need help. Then the argument moves into secondary effects, cutting foodstamps will make poor people better off because the economy will grow, or cutting foodstamps will hurt taxpayers because poor nutrition and financial instability fewer people will escape poverty. The problem becomes complex enough that no one really knows the answer and so even the smartest often just end up restating their preheld belief. Markets are supposed to be efficient they match demand with production efficiently, or some such. Political demand needs to be matched with equal efficiency. Imposing good governance into a voting system will very likely create distortions.
- bsdetector 8y ago
  Good for the country, obviously. If you can't define what good governance is, how can you possible come up with a way to maximize it? The purpose of elections is not to be happy with the outcome of the election, it's to be happy with the policy that results from the election.
  - SubiculumCode 8y ago
    You seem to ignore my point about multiple stakeholders. I believe that the happiness measure is not a measure of outcomes but happiness with getting a representative closer to his/her choice or preference...meaning one that may best represent their views, desires, and needs in government. Tha seems like good governance.
    - bsdetector 8y ago
      You seem to ignore my point about the collective good. By definition measuring happiness is measuring feelings. Rule by emotion. When has that ever worked out well? If closer to personal preference is better, shouldn't direct democracy - absolute majority rule - be the ideal? But it's clearly not the case, at least not in any sizeable country.
  - triviatise 8y ago
    what does "good for the country" mean? If welfare helps people in the short term, but reinforces cycles of poverty is that good for the country or not? If nationalized medicine helps people in the short term, but eliminates the incentive for medical innovation is that good or bad?
  - Matticus_Rex 8y ago
    > Good for the country, obviously. If you can't define what good governance is, how can you possible come up with a way to maximize it? It's almost like this is a really complicated problem that the best and brightest have been thinking about for centuries.
    - bsdetector 8y ago
      It's almost like "happiness" with who won one election is a gross oversimplification and fairly meaningless metric. Sounds like we're in agreement.

SubiculumCode 8y ago

Good governance is a loaded term. Good for who? Different stakeholders will frequently have opposing goals, desires, and needs. Cutting foodstamps program helps some by lowering taxes, but hurts others who need help. Then the argument moves into secondary effects, cutting foodstamps will make poor people better off because the economy will grow, or cutting foodstamps will hurt taxpayers because poor nutrition and financial instability fewer people will escape poverty. The problem becomes complex enough that no one really knows the answer and so even the smartest often just end up restating their preheld belief. Markets are supposed to be efficient they match demand with production efficiently, or some such. Political demand needs to be matched with equal efficiency. Imposing good governance into a voting system will very likely create distortions.

bsdetector 8y ago
Good for the country, obviously. If you can't define what good governance is, how can you possible come up with a way to maximize it? The purpose of elections is not to be happy with the outcome of the election, it's to be happy with the policy that results from the election.
- SubiculumCode 8y ago
  You seem to ignore my point about multiple stakeholders. I believe that the happiness measure is not a measure of outcomes but happiness with getting a representative closer to his/her choice or preference...meaning one that may best represent their views, desires, and needs in government. Tha seems like good governance.
  - bsdetector 8y ago
    You seem to ignore my point about the collective good. By definition measuring happiness is measuring feelings. Rule by emotion. When has that ever worked out well? If closer to personal preference is better, shouldn't direct democracy - absolute majority rule - be the ideal? But it's clearly not the case, at least not in any sizeable country.
- triviatise 8y ago
  what does "good for the country" mean? If welfare helps people in the short term, but reinforces cycles of poverty is that good for the country or not? If nationalized medicine helps people in the short term, but eliminates the incentive for medical innovation is that good or bad?
- Matticus_Rex 8y ago
  > Good for the country, obviously. If you can't define what good governance is, how can you possible come up with a way to maximize it? It's almost like this is a really complicated problem that the best and brightest have been thinking about for centuries.
  - bsdetector 8y ago
    It's almost like "happiness" with who won one election is a gross oversimplification and fairly meaningless metric. Sounds like we're in agreement.