3 ms·

I think there's a sort of Toqueville effect[0] in regards to the popular treatment of FPTP. According to Arrow's theorem more than two outcome voting systems,

by ethn 6y ago

I think there's a sort of Toqueville effect[0] in regards to the popular treatment of FPTP. According to Arrow's theorem more than two outcome voting systems, in terms of voting preference profiles (e.g. score or ranked choice), often succumbs to matching the least amount of voting preferences--which of course pleases that small disenfranchised minority but in exploit of the populous[1][2]. "Would it be wonderful if, under the pressure of all these difficulties, the Convention should have been forced into some deviations from that artificial structure and regular symmetry which an abstract view of the subject might lead an ingenious theorist to bestow on a constitution planned in his closet or in his imagination?" - James Madison [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tocqueville_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tocqueville_effect [1] Critique for layman: https://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/november/devlin-ranked-voting-110711.html https://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/november/devlin-ranked-v... [2] Mathematical Proof: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/arrows-theorem/#NonDic https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/arrows-theorem/#NonDic

Kye 6y ago
The current system in the US already favors a tiny minority. That's why they try so hard to limit who can vote. A change is an improvement if it at least grows the number of people represented.
- ethn 6y ago
  Definitely not true by the empirical voting preferences, however, that's not a good argument to move away from it. If we're to believe Arrow, these other systems guarantee that fate we all don't want. At least the FPTP system has a chance. There will never be a candidate which embodies every local sphere's preferences. In the Presidential system, the successful candidate is challenged to find and espouse the most common values across their nation to complement the majority of preferences. Thus, they'll commoditize that common ideology, rejecting more niche and sophisticated ideologies which otherwise alienates those individual local spheres with disparate and idiosyncratic preferences; that is to say, ideology is commoditized in a similar manner to a big brand soda as it projects from a niche market to a more massive consumer demographic

by ethn 6y ago

Kye 6y ago

The current system in the US already favors a tiny minority. That's why they try so hard to limit who can vote. A change is an improvement if it at least grows the number of people represented.

ethn 6y ago
Definitely not true by the empirical voting preferences, however, that's not a good argument to move away from it. If we're to believe Arrow, these other systems guarantee that fate we all don't want. At least the FPTP system has a chance. There will never be a candidate which embodies every local sphere's preferences. In the Presidential system, the successful candidate is challenged to find and espouse the most common values across their nation to complement the majority of preferences. Thus, they'll commoditize that common ideology, rejecting more niche and sophisticated ideologies which otherwise alienates those individual local spheres with disparate and idiosyncratic preferences; that is to say, ideology is commoditized in a similar manner to a big brand soda as it projects from a niche market to a more massive consumer demographic