5 ms·

> ran into the establishment What he ran into was the inevitable math of a first past the post electoral system. You want third parties, you need ranked choic

by davidw 7y ago

> ran into the establishment What he ran into was the inevitable math of a first past the post electoral system. You want third parties, you need ranked choice voting or something similar. Even if you're fine with the main parties, RCV is probably better in terms of electing who most people want. You could argue that Bush senior might have won with it if the Perot voters ranked 1) Perot 2) Bush. Bush junior might have lost had the Nader voters ranked Gore second. Similar question marks hang over the election of Trump with Jill Stein and Gary Johnson and the extremely thin margin of victory in the electoral college.

protomyth 7y ago
No, the United States has an Electoral College for very specific reasons that are just as true today and they were when the Constitution was written. It is a shame that political parties formed in the first place, but George Washington couldn't have his way all the time. It has nothing to do with the voting. It had a lot to do with the who controlled information. I get the feeling with the internet of today he would have fared quite a bit better (92 was 2 years before Netscape was founded).
- davidw 7y ago
  The EC and ranked choice voting are two different, and compatible things. You could have RCV within each state, for instance.
  - protomyth 7y ago
    Ranked choice might work for parliaments, but it would just create unwelcome surprises in the US. I cannot help but think what happened in a sport (NASCAR) with its switch from winner take all to a series of rankings would mean if it were something as important as voting. You might find sports is not a serious argument, but this is the US and the reaction shows some tendencies towards other aspects of life.
    - nothrabannosir 7y ago
      FPTP is one of the most efficient and fundamental enemies of democracy, plaguing the USA. Everyone agrees partisanship is bad, people looooove a “bipartisan” bill, but FPTP mathematically converges on a two party system, always. It fuels tribalism and us-vs-them mentality like nothing else and perpetuates a political aristocracy through perverse incentives and hamstrung competition. To see this in effect, consider that a major party is incentivised to fund fringe opposition parties which will steal votes from the main rival. Ask yourself how healthy that democracy can be. There are many alternatives and RCV might not be your first choice, but make no mistake about it: FPTP has to go. Stat.
      - protomyth 7y ago
        The US is not, and has never been, a democracy. The US is a republic where there is a balance between the people, states, and federal. Tribalism is the nature of humans, its how we got this far. Heck, we pack bond with non-humans and even mechanical things. Fancy voting will not change that. FPTP is here in the US to stay, because there would be chaos with the other voting systems and the accusations of rigging would be rampant.
        michaelmrose 7y ago
        > FPTP is here in the US to stay, because there would be chaos with the other voting systems and the accusations of rigging would be rampant. FPTP is probably here to stay because of pure inertia. The rest of the claims need support.
        vkou 7y ago
        The US is a democracy, it is not a direct democracy. No democracy that currently exists is a direct democracy. You're splitting hairs. Also, 'Republic' is a meaningless description of a country, because it conveys no practical information about its form of government. Norway is not a republic. North Korea is a republic. Canada is not a republic. Russia is a republic.
      - anderskaseorg 7y ago
  - tunesmith 7y ago
    Fine for state and house/state elections, but doesn't work for presidential elections. Splitting the EC below a strict majority of EVs sends the election to the House.
- erik_seaberg 7y ago
  The Electoral College was supposed to be chosen by their community to go meet and discuss the candidates. When they get appointed anonymously because they've pledged obedience to a political party, they've rejected their responsibility.
  - logfromblammo 7y ago
    I'd argue that even the option to reject that responsibility was removed when the political parties put their presidential candidates' names on the ballot, instead of all the names of their electors. It seems fundamentally fraudulent to do that. It makes it look like the popular vote actually matters in a presidential election. It's really a bunch of people you have never heard of, voting the way they were told to vote, while under threat of party excommunication if they reneg. There's more democracy to it whenever the Catholic cardinals elect a new monarch-for-life. The original idea, to send representatives of the community in good standing to make their own decisions in the best interests of those communities, was well-intentioned. It isn't the modern elector's fault that their role has been nullified and obviated by political undermining.
espeed 7y ago
> You want third parties, you need ranked choice voting or something similar. Arrow's Impossibility Theorem : "When voters have three or more distinct alternatives (options), no ranked voting electoral system can convert the ranked preferences of individuals into a community-wide (complete and transitive) ranking while also meeting a specified set of criteria: unrestricted domain, non-dictatorship, Pareto efficiency, and independence of irrelevant alternatives" [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_impossibility_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_impossibility_theorem
- davidw 7y ago
  Certainly - that doesn't mean that we can't have a system that's a bit better than we currently have, though. It just means there's not a perfect system.
  - nsajko 7y ago
    No, it just means there is no ranked/ordinal voting system that satisfies Arrows criteria. It says nothing about score/cardinal voting. Arrow: "I’m a little inclined to think that score systems where you categorize in maybe three or four classes probably (in spite of what I said about manipulation) is probably the best."
    - ClayShentrup 7y ago
      Nailed it.
- azernik 7y ago
  Still doesn't disadvantage third parties, and is usually at least fairly close to public desires.
- bzbz 7y ago
  Look at the theorem you linked. What is its point? Its “dictator” exists in majority vote as well, and is merely anyone who has not determined their vote yet in a close election, e.g. the “swing states.” Correct me if I’m misreading, but how does this favor majority vote over ranked voting?
sampo 7y ago
> You want third parties, you need ranked choice voting or something similar. Ranked choice or similar would only give you an occasional third party win here and there, in some small number of electoral districts. It will not give you serious and viable third parties with long living organizations. What you'd need is, proportional voting for the House. Electoral districts the size of at least 10 House representatives. This would give you third parties that consistently get House representatives in many electoral districts, and thus have a viable and serious party organization, with routine and experience to to run campaigns from elections to elections. This is how European countries work, except UK and France. If you want out of the two-party system, I don't think anything else works.
- munk-a 7y ago
  Ranked voting actually does enable third party candidate wins (assuming they can garner sufficient public support) with ranked choice voting the stigma of voting third party is removed and people can safely vote primarily for who they want instead of primarily voting strategically.
  - sampo 7y ago
    Where does it work? Australia has single-representative voting districts with instant-runoff voting, and they seem to have something that looks to me being close to a two-party system in practice. I admit, I didn't browse though all possible countries, so perhaps you know a better example? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Representatives_(Australia) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Representatives_(Aust...
    - cat199 7y ago
      agree - voting system is only 1/2 of the pie - the other piece being the actual governmental structure.. when parties not candidates are voted for, and coalitions have to be formed, the need to heavily fund 'magical individuals' is less, and the need to compromise between parties and meet people directly on their own terms increases..
    - 7y ago
anderskaseorg 7y ago
The single-winner form of ranked choice voting (a.k.a. instant runoff voting) doesn’t help third parties as much as you think! It makes it safe for you to give your first choice to a third party candidate who has no chance of winning, because they’ll have no effect on the result after being eliminated in the first round. But as soon as your third party candidate becomes a serious challenger, you’ll risk instead eliminating your second choice, whose redistributed votes are much more likely to favor your last choice. https://www.electionscience.org/library/the-spoiler-effect/ https://www.electionscience.org/library/the-spoiler-effect/ So IRV is great for stopping weak third parties from upsetting the balance of the two-party duopoly, but not so great for helping strong third parties get a real chance at winning. If you want real change, there are much better systems available: take a look at approval voting, score voting, or Condorcet voting.
dang 7y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20393390 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20393390.

by davidw 7y ago

protomyth 7y ago

No, the United States has an Electoral College for very specific reasons that are just as true today and they were when the Constitution was written. It is a shame that political parties formed in the first place, but George Washington couldn't have his way all the time. It has nothing to do with the voting. It had a lot to do with the who controlled information. I get the feeling with the internet of today he would have fared quite a bit better (92 was 2 years before Netscape was founded).

davidw 7y ago
The EC and ranked choice voting are two different, and compatible things. You could have RCV within each state, for instance.
- protomyth 7y ago
  Ranked choice might work for parliaments, but it would just create unwelcome surprises in the US. I cannot help but think what happened in a sport (NASCAR) with its switch from winner take all to a series of rankings would mean if it were something as important as voting. You might find sports is not a serious argument, but this is the US and the reaction shows some tendencies towards other aspects of life.
  - nothrabannosir 7y ago
    FPTP is one of the most efficient and fundamental enemies of democracy, plaguing the USA. Everyone agrees partisanship is bad, people looooove a “bipartisan” bill, but FPTP mathematically converges on a two party system, always. It fuels tribalism and us-vs-them mentality like nothing else and perpetuates a political aristocracy through perverse incentives and hamstrung competition. To see this in effect, consider that a major party is incentivised to fund fringe opposition parties which will steal votes from the main rival. Ask yourself how healthy that democracy can be. There are many alternatives and RCV might not be your first choice, but make no mistake about it: FPTP has to go. Stat.
    - protomyth 7y ago
      The US is not, and has never been, a democracy. The US is a republic where there is a balance between the people, states, and federal. Tribalism is the nature of humans, its how we got this far. Heck, we pack bond with non-humans and even mechanical things. Fancy voting will not change that. FPTP is here in the US to stay, because there would be chaos with the other voting systems and the accusations of rigging would be rampant.
      - michaelmrose 7y ago
        > FPTP is here in the US to stay, because there would be chaos with the other voting systems and the accusations of rigging would be rampant. FPTP is probably here to stay because of pure inertia. The rest of the claims need support.
      - vkou 7y ago
        The US is a democracy, it is not a direct democracy. No democracy that currently exists is a direct democracy. You're splitting hairs. Also, 'Republic' is a meaningless description of a country, because it conveys no practical information about its form of government. Norway is not a republic. North Korea is a republic. Canada is not a republic. Russia is a republic.
    - anderskaseorg 7y ago
- tunesmith 7y ago
  Fine for state and house/state elections, but doesn't work for presidential elections. Splitting the EC below a strict majority of EVs sends the election to the House.
erik_seaberg 7y ago
The Electoral College was supposed to be chosen by their community to go meet and discuss the candidates. When they get appointed anonymously because they've pledged obedience to a political party, they've rejected their responsibility.
- logfromblammo 7y ago
  I'd argue that even the option to reject that responsibility was removed when the political parties put their presidential candidates' names on the ballot, instead of all the names of their electors. It seems fundamentally fraudulent to do that. It makes it look like the popular vote actually matters in a presidential election. It's really a bunch of people you have never heard of, voting the way they were told to vote, while under threat of party excommunication if they reneg. There's more democracy to it whenever the Catholic cardinals elect a new monarch-for-life. The original idea, to send representatives of the community in good standing to make their own decisions in the best interests of those communities, was well-intentioned. It isn't the modern elector's fault that their role has been nullified and obviated by political undermining.

espeed 7y ago

> You want third parties, you need ranked choice voting or something similar. Arrow's Impossibility Theorem : "When voters have three or more distinct alternatives (options), no ranked voting electoral system can convert the ranked preferences of individuals into a community-wide (complete and transitive) ranking while also meeting a specified set of criteria: unrestricted domain, non-dictatorship, Pareto efficiency, and independence of irrelevant alternatives" [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_impossibility_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_impossibility_theorem

davidw 7y ago
Certainly - that doesn't mean that we can't have a system that's a bit better than we currently have, though. It just means there's not a perfect system.
- nsajko 7y ago
  No, it just means there is no ranked/ordinal voting system that satisfies Arrows criteria. It says nothing about score/cardinal voting. Arrow: "I’m a little inclined to think that score systems where you categorize in maybe three or four classes probably (in spite of what I said about manipulation) is probably the best."
  - ClayShentrup 7y ago
    Nailed it.
azernik 7y ago
Still doesn't disadvantage third parties, and is usually at least fairly close to public desires.
bzbz 7y ago
Look at the theorem you linked. What is its point? Its “dictator” exists in majority vote as well, and is merely anyone who has not determined their vote yet in a close election, e.g. the “swing states.” Correct me if I’m misreading, but how does this favor majority vote over ranked voting?

sampo 7y ago

> You want third parties, you need ranked choice voting or something similar. Ranked choice or similar would only give you an occasional third party win here and there, in some small number of electoral districts. It will not give you serious and viable third parties with long living organizations. What you'd need is, proportional voting for the House. Electoral districts the size of at least 10 House representatives. This would give you third parties that consistently get House representatives in many electoral districts, and thus have a viable and serious party organization, with routine and experience to to run campaigns from elections to elections. This is how European countries work, except UK and France. If you want out of the two-party system, I don't think anything else works.

munk-a 7y ago
Ranked voting actually does enable third party candidate wins (assuming they can garner sufficient public support) with ranked choice voting the stigma of voting third party is removed and people can safely vote primarily for who they want instead of primarily voting strategically.
- sampo 7y ago
  Where does it work? Australia has single-representative voting districts with instant-runoff voting, and they seem to have something that looks to me being close to a two-party system in practice. I admit, I didn't browse though all possible countries, so perhaps you know a better example? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Representatives_(Australia) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Representatives_(Aust...
  - cat199 7y ago
    agree - voting system is only 1/2 of the pie - the other piece being the actual governmental structure.. when parties not candidates are voted for, and coalitions have to be formed, the need to heavily fund 'magical individuals' is less, and the need to compromise between parties and meet people directly on their own terms increases..
  - 7y ago

anderskaseorg 7y ago

The single-winner form of ranked choice voting (a.k.a. instant runoff voting) doesn’t help third parties as much as you think! It makes it safe for you to give your first choice to a third party candidate who has no chance of winning, because they’ll have no effect on the result after being eliminated in the first round. But as soon as your third party candidate becomes a serious challenger, you’ll risk instead eliminating your second choice, whose redistributed votes are much more likely to favor your last choice. https://www.electionscience.org/library/the-spoiler-effect/ https://www.electionscience.org/library/the-spoiler-effect/ So IRV is great for stopping weak third parties from upsetting the balance of the two-party duopoly, but not so great for helping strong third parties get a real chance at winning. If you want real change, there are much better systems available: take a look at approval voting, score voting, or Condorcet voting.

dang 7y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20393390 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20393390.