3 ms·

"whoever gets the most votes wins, end of story." That seems to be a really bad idea if you want minority representation. How would this play out in a racist

"whoever gets the most votes wins, end of story." That seems to be a really bad idea if you want minority representation. How would this play out in a racist 1950s scenario?

jtx22 7y ago
Why would you want minority representation? The goal is optimizing happiness. That necessarily means optimizing the majority's happiness.
lukifer 7y ago
This is a problem with democracy in general; while constitutional constraints theoretically limit the damage the majority can do, in practice "the fox guards the henhouse" with regard to reifying those constraints. One can easily envision scenarios where the milquetoast centrists defeat stronger positions that would otherwise have won in a two-party, lesser-evil scenario; on the other hand, it could just as easily break the other direction. I'd argue that incentives towards consensus building are net wins for minority voters (in all senses of the word), because it puts the maximum number of voters in play for each candidate. Right now, there is a very real sense in which Texas Democrats and California Republicans have very poor representation; 49% may as well round to zero. (Proportional representation is also worthy of consideration here.) Putting those votes in play for third parties and independents makes candidates more responsive to the whole electorate rather than chasing a small number of swing voters. Even if I manage to gain 70% support of voters, it will all be for naught if my opponent opens an even bigger tent at 75%. It shifts us away from thinking of politics as a zero-sum game.
elihu 7y ago
The solution for having minority representation is to use some sort of proportional representation with a multiple-winner system. But, in elections that can only have one winner (i.e. for president, governor, mayor, etc...) there's no way around the risk that a majority of people have bad opinions. That's not a problem with the voting system, but with the electorate.
- madhadron 7y ago
  Or you do what parliamentary systems do and have the executive position be chosen by the elected representatives, and try to set it up so that minority representation still has to be taken into account to "form a government" as the Brits say.

"whoever gets the most votes wins, end of story." That seems to be a really bad idea if you want minority representation. How would this play out in a racist 1950s scenario?

jtx22 7y ago

Why would you want minority representation? The goal is optimizing happiness. That necessarily means optimizing the majority's happiness.

lukifer 7y ago

This is a problem with democracy in general; while constitutional constraints theoretically limit the damage the majority can do, in practice "the fox guards the henhouse" with regard to reifying those constraints. One can easily envision scenarios where the milquetoast centrists defeat stronger positions that would otherwise have won in a two-party, lesser-evil scenario; on the other hand, it could just as easily break the other direction. I'd argue that incentives towards consensus building are net wins for minority voters (in all senses of the word), because it puts the maximum number of voters in play for each candidate. Right now, there is a very real sense in which Texas Democrats and California Republicans have very poor representation; 49% may as well round to zero. (Proportional representation is also worthy of consideration here.) Putting those votes in play for third parties and independents makes candidates more responsive to the whole electorate rather than chasing a small number of swing voters. Even if I manage to gain 70% support of voters, it will all be for naught if my opponent opens an even bigger tent at 75%. It shifts us away from thinking of politics as a zero-sum game.

elihu 7y ago

The solution for having minority representation is to use some sort of proportional representation with a multiple-winner system. But, in elections that can only have one winner (i.e. for president, governor, mayor, etc...) there's no way around the risk that a majority of people have bad opinions. That's not a problem with the voting system, but with the electorate.

madhadron 7y ago
Or you do what parliamentary systems do and have the executive position be chosen by the elected representatives, and try to set it up so that minority representation still has to be taken into account to "form a government" as the Brits say.