4 ms·

The conversation in this thread demonstrates why first-past-the-post voting is so hard to replace. There is no consensus on which alternative system to replace

The conversation in this thread demonstrates why first-past-the-post voting is so hard to replace. There is no consensus on which alternative system to replace it with.

dane-pgp 6y ago
On the contrary, it shows that so many people with differing views share a common goal of replacing FPTP. I'm sure all the people here opposing FPTP would eagerly accept any of the alternatives being proposed, if it had a credible chance of being implemented in their jurisdiction. The real barrier is that a change to the voting system would have to be approved by a party that is winning under the current system. Convincing a party to agree to any change is much harder than picking one of the many good options. Also, I hope you don't mind if I mention that your point is eerily analogous to a dictator saying "We can't introduce democracy, because then people would disagree on who the leader should be."
- Doxin 6y ago
  So what's the solution here? Pick a system at random? Hold a vote? Neither seems quite satisfactory.
  - dane-pgp 6y ago
    In practice, the decision-makers within a major party would look at which option would benefit them more than the other major party, and then a commitment to introduce that system would be added to their party platform, with it being implemented the next time they win an election. For example, if the Democrats were afraid that the Green party would split their vote, they might support RCV. Therefore, arguably, the best strategy for bringing about voting reform might be to vote for the Green party, even if you don't support any other Green party policies, or any Democrat policies.
MilesTeg 6y ago
Amusingly this can be interpreted as that the vote for which voting system to use uses first-past-the-post so first-past-the-post wins.
godelski 6y ago
Are you asking the public or experts? Because I'd argue that a big reason there isn't consensus in the public is they don't even know about cardinal methods. With experts, I think most would approve of any cardinal. But of course nerds are going to squabble. That's what we do.

The conversation in this thread demonstrates why first-past-the-post voting is so hard to replace. There is no consensus on which alternative system to replace it with.

dane-pgp 6y ago

On the contrary, it shows that so many people with differing views share a common goal of replacing FPTP. I'm sure all the people here opposing FPTP would eagerly accept any of the alternatives being proposed, if it had a credible chance of being implemented in their jurisdiction. The real barrier is that a change to the voting system would have to be approved by a party that is winning under the current system. Convincing a party to agree to any change is much harder than picking one of the many good options. Also, I hope you don't mind if I mention that your point is eerily analogous to a dictator saying "We can't introduce democracy, because then people would disagree on who the leader should be."

Doxin 6y ago
So what's the solution here? Pick a system at random? Hold a vote? Neither seems quite satisfactory.
- dane-pgp 6y ago
  In practice, the decision-makers within a major party would look at which option would benefit them more than the other major party, and then a commitment to introduce that system would be added to their party platform, with it being implemented the next time they win an election. For example, if the Democrats were afraid that the Green party would split their vote, they might support RCV. Therefore, arguably, the best strategy for bringing about voting reform might be to vote for the Green party, even if you don't support any other Green party policies, or any Democrat policies.

MilesTeg 6y ago

Amusingly this can be interpreted as that the vote for which voting system to use uses first-past-the-post so first-past-the-post wins.

godelski 6y ago

Are you asking the public or experts? Because I'd argue that a big reason there isn't consensus in the public is they don't even know about cardinal methods. With experts, I think most would approve of any cardinal. But of course nerds are going to squabble. That's what we do.