5 ms·

In regards to your better election design, I have three main complaints. 1. Having candidates review each other seems like a good way to have the worst candida

• bokonist 16y ago
  1) In the first round of the election, with 18,000 candidates and 18,000 voters, the impact of each vote individually is negligible. In scenarios where an individual vote is of negligible value, votes generally do not vote out of crass self interest, but vote based on how the vote makes them feel out themselves - people vote out of sense of duty, justice, or social solidarity. Thus I would not expect the elector-voters to vote out of crass strategic self interest because it wouldn't really help them, and it would make the person feel rotten about themselves. In the later rounds, though, it might be a problem. One idea I thought of is that "honey pot" applications of known awful candidates get planted in the mix, and if you give a top grade to one of these awful applicants, you're vote is disqualified. But overall you may be right - the variation in which people outside the election are allowed to vote would probably be better. 2) Here's a fundamental question - should voting and elections be viewed as a means to an end? Or an end in itself? If you view voting as an end in itself, that's essentially a religious claim, and there's no grounds for debate. But if you view voting as a means to an end, I have no problem excluding people who aren't willing to put in the time to learn about the candidates. I would much rather have people not vote at all then vote based on slogans and sound bites. 3) The financial requirement ( the median income or about $40k in net worth) is not very steep. By definition, an average person who saves 10% of their income a year will be able to meet the requirement within ten years. I want my Representatives to be competent, experienced, wise, long-term-thinking individuals. If a person cannot meet that requirement, it means that they are either a) young b) incapable or unwilling of holding down an average job c) a live-for-the-moment spender. I have no problem excluding such people from office. Polarization happens not because of the two candidates, but because of party spirit. Party spirit is something that happens over time, its the result of agitators who cultivate a voting block by spreading and ideology, convincing people to pledge themselves in solidarity, etc. You can have just as many problems with multiple parties. For instance, the Weimar Republic had six major parties, yet it is among the worst examples of the dangers of party politics in history. The problem with our two party system is not bi-polarization, or a lack of choice. The problem is as Noah Webster said - its party spirit. And the problem of party spirit will be bad with two, three or six parties.
  • torme 16y ago
    These are all great points, and I really do respect your opinion here. 1) I think that the problem is that you've created a competition, and that as a result, people would vote against each other. You're probably correct that people do typically vote for candidates without self interest, but I think that the problem is you've pitted people against each other. If I've entered a race, I already think that I am the best option, and will take action to help my success. This is almost like the prisoners dilemna, in that voters almost assume that others will act in self interest, and as a result do the same. I think maybe you just have a more optimistic view of how people will act in this case than I do. 2) I don't think we should dismiss people from voting for any reason, or say that a lower voter turnout would be a good thing because it's focusing on the people who actually "care". I think that in some ways giving people party lines is a good thing in some ways because it allows them to vote without necessarily needing to do research into a candidate. If I personally identify myself as a liberal, I don't have to do much research before voting democrat, and in fact, researching candidates is probably only going to strengthen my opinion of them both. I'm by no means saying this is an ideal situation, and it is certainly one of the main problems with a partied system. But I think if you make voting something thats only available to those with enough time to research it then I think you run the risk of misrepresenting an extremely large portion of the country, ending up with something chosen by an "elite" and I almost feel that this is a worse option than having people vote from their gut. 3) I think this is way off base. I can think of some pretty outstanding members of our society who choose a path for ethical and moral reasons outside of financial gain. Teachers are a great example. They are educated citizens working for the benefit of society, but some of them sure as hell don't make 40k. Should we exclude people like this because they chose a path that didn't give them the most money? Having a high paying job doesn't necessarily mean that you're educated, or a frugal person for that matter. As I hinted at above, I guess I don't mind the party line voting. I don't mind the labeling it provides because, as I said, I think it encourages voter turnout. If you're given two candidates, and you have to choose between them, without labeling them as liberal or democrat, is a person significantly more likely to choose a different candidate than they would have with the label? If hypothetically Sarah Palin ran against Obama, and we didn't label them as democrat and republican, would voters choose a different candidate than if we had? Again, I really do appreciate your response, and I'm sorry if I seem combative, I just like the debate.