3 ms·

Disappointing. Democracy doesn't work if every voter doesn't get an opportunity to vote. I guess the people who specialise in suppressing turnout don't care. T

Disappointing. Democracy doesn't work if every voter doesn't get an opportunity to vote. I guess the people who specialise in suppressing turnout don't care. The reluctance to let people register to vote is understandable, if your allegiance is to your party before your country. I suppose they rationalise it by convincing themselves that what's best for the country is for their party to be elected, rather than a free and fair election. Or maybe they tell themselves "I'm sure the other side uses similar tactics". Or maybe they just don't care.

beagle3 8y ago
Democracy doesn't work even when people get an opportunity to vote (unless the vote is 2-options, one round): See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theore... But it works even worse if voters don't get to vote. True.
- newtothebay 8y ago
  For readers who may encounter the Arrow's Impossibility Theorem for the first time, its conclusion is shockingly true but also doesn't prescribe doom. There are reasonable alternative voting systems that don't run into the same "Impossibility" problem https://ncase.me/ballot/ https://ncase.me/ballot/
  - drdeca 8y ago
    Sure, they don't run up against /Arrow's/ impossibility theorem, but Gibbard's 1978 theorem shows that "Any straightforward game form (deterministic or not) is a probability mixture of game forms each of which is either unilateral or duple." (For an explanation of what that means, see : https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/14245 https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/14245 ) Edit: though, if I had to recommend one, I'd probably either recommend "ranked pairs" or something exotic with a substantial deal of randomness. Or, really, maybe I'd advocate that the primaries use ranked pairs, and that the general use FPTP (or something very similar) because it is easier to understand the mechanism, so easier for people to trust it / keep results seen as legitimate, and because parties narrow down the options to 2 for the most part anyway, and all the usual systems are the same once it gets down to two candidates (in random ballot voting, it is still different though)
Kalium 8y ago
> The reluctance to let people register to vote is understandable, if your allegiance is to your party before your country. I think many concerned believe that making sure their party gets elected - no matter how - is allegiance to their country. It's internally consistent if you genuinely believe that the other party seeks to destroy your country, and therefore is to be opposed by all available means.
- zackbloom 8y ago
  It becomes even more problematic when one of the political parties view compromise as a part of its ideology and the other doesn't. One side is politely fighting and the other is waging a guerilla war.
masonic 8y ago
doesn't get an opportunity to vote Choosing not to vote, or apathy about voting a given ballot, does not mean that an eligible voter lacked the opportunity.

beagle3 8y ago

Democracy doesn't work even when people get an opportunity to vote (unless the vote is 2-options, one round): See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theore... But it works even worse if voters don't get to vote. True.

newtothebay 8y ago
For readers who may encounter the Arrow's Impossibility Theorem for the first time, its conclusion is shockingly true but also doesn't prescribe doom. There are reasonable alternative voting systems that don't run into the same "Impossibility" problem https://ncase.me/ballot/ https://ncase.me/ballot/
- drdeca 8y ago
  Sure, they don't run up against /Arrow's/ impossibility theorem, but Gibbard's 1978 theorem shows that "Any straightforward game form (deterministic or not) is a probability mixture of game forms each of which is either unilateral or duple." (For an explanation of what that means, see : https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/14245 https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/14245 ) Edit: though, if I had to recommend one, I'd probably either recommend "ranked pairs" or something exotic with a substantial deal of randomness. Or, really, maybe I'd advocate that the primaries use ranked pairs, and that the general use FPTP (or something very similar) because it is easier to understand the mechanism, so easier for people to trust it / keep results seen as legitimate, and because parties narrow down the options to 2 for the most part anyway, and all the usual systems are the same once it gets down to two candidates (in random ballot voting, it is still different though)

Kalium 8y ago

> The reluctance to let people register to vote is understandable, if your allegiance is to your party before your country. I think many concerned believe that making sure their party gets elected - no matter how - is allegiance to their country. It's internally consistent if you genuinely believe that the other party seeks to destroy your country, and therefore is to be opposed by all available means.

zackbloom 8y ago
It becomes even more problematic when one of the political parties view compromise as a part of its ideology and the other doesn't. One side is politely fighting and the other is waging a guerilla war.

masonic 8y ago

doesn't get an opportunity to vote Choosing not to vote, or apathy about voting a given ballot, does not mean that an eligible voter lacked the opportunity.