3 ms·

Almost all voting systems in use today will allow a plurality of political actors, and hence most democracies have more than two parties represented in parliame

by Jolter 8y ago

Almost all voting systems in use today will allow a plurality of political actors, and hence most democracies have more than two parties represented in parliament. That is, except "first past the post" which is the system in the UK and US. It inevitably and systemically always devolves into a de facto two-party system. I'm sure you can see how this is a problem? Granted, quadratic voting specifically was probably not designed with parliamentary elections in mind. There are other systems in use that are designed to be fair and result in decent representation of voters.

bsdetector 8y ago
> That is, except "first past the post" which is the system in the UK and US. ... I'm sure you can see how this is a problem? The two longest lasting, largest, most successful democracies of all time - I don't see the problem. The arguments against winner-take-all are mathematically maximizing a collective total happiness score for single elections. But governments are run by people, not math, and I've yet to see anything addressing the psychology of election systems and especially not over time. If instead election systems are scored on how well they do after 250 years or how few world wars they start then winner take all is the only winner.
- jhasse 8y ago
  Remove "world" from "world wars" and it looks totally different.
- Jolter 8y ago
  "The two longest lasting, largest, most successful democracies of all time - I don't see the problem." They both have problems with large minorities of voters not being represented in their respective parliaments.
  - bsdetector 8y ago
    If the problems you have with UK and USA government are you don't like that people yell at each other and the representatives don't look the way you feel they should look, then you're right and they should change to a more 'civilized', proportional government. It's hard to argue against someone's feelings. But if you want to talk about good governance over time, does the country endure and does it make good decisions that ultimately benefit the country, that would be a more productive discussion. You have an uphill battle, with history not being kind to proportional democracies, but there's plenty of room for opinions and reasonable disagreement. It's possible that constantly pitting constituents against each other is actually a vital component of democracy.
    - Faark 7y ago
      Yes, the advantage of a two party system is power frequently switching between parties. Its a feedback loop that seems to keep both parties balanced and other systems should look to find ways to achieve similar effects. And certainly doesn't imply the current US system is the best possible for running a government for its people.

by Jolter 8y ago

bsdetector 8y ago

> That is, except "first past the post" which is the system in the UK and US. ... I'm sure you can see how this is a problem? The two longest lasting, largest, most successful democracies of all time - I don't see the problem. The arguments against winner-take-all are mathematically maximizing a collective total happiness score for single elections. But governments are run by people, not math, and I've yet to see anything addressing the psychology of election systems and especially not over time. If instead election systems are scored on how well they do after 250 years or how few world wars they start then winner take all is the only winner.

jhasse 8y ago
Remove "world" from "world wars" and it looks totally different.
Jolter 8y ago
"The two longest lasting, largest, most successful democracies of all time - I don't see the problem." They both have problems with large minorities of voters not being represented in their respective parliaments.
- bsdetector 8y ago
  If the problems you have with UK and USA government are you don't like that people yell at each other and the representatives don't look the way you feel they should look, then you're right and they should change to a more 'civilized', proportional government. It's hard to argue against someone's feelings. But if you want to talk about good governance over time, does the country endure and does it make good decisions that ultimately benefit the country, that would be a more productive discussion. You have an uphill battle, with history not being kind to proportional democracies, but there's plenty of room for opinions and reasonable disagreement. It's possible that constantly pitting constituents against each other is actually a vital component of democracy.
  - Faark 7y ago
    Yes, the advantage of a two party system is power frequently switching between parties. Its a feedback loop that seems to keep both parties balanced and other systems should look to find ways to achieve similar effects. And certainly doesn't imply the current US system is the best possible for running a government for its people.