3 ms·

i'd actually love to see a voting system developed that's closer to a conjoint, which is a statistical method designed to reveal preferences, rather than relyin

i'd actually love to see a voting system developed that's closer to a conjoint, which is a statistical method designed to reveal preferences, rather than relying on stated preferences (which are notoriously unreliable). it's more complicated, but we have plenty of technology nowadays to make it practical. one method of implementing this (from thinking about it for all of 2 minutes), is developing a list of the top 10-20 issues that voters care about in a given election and providing tradeoff choices for each, then matching them to the candidate closest to their revealed preference. of course, the biggest issue with method is that it moves the problem up one level, from voting to choice design. [0]: https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjoint_analysis https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjoint_analysis

godelski 5y ago
I honestly think it is very difficult to determine what voters' actual preferences are. I mean think of your standard political compass tests. Or even Meyer Briggs. They can change day to day or mood to mood and lots of questions tend to be leading. While I love the idea, I think logistically it would be a nightmare and greatly reduce transparency. It would also be far more vulnerable to so called experts manipulating the system if they aren't acting in good faith.
- clairity 5y ago
  it's exceedingly difficult to fairly aggregate voter preferences, but all current voting systems seem to reduce all that complexity down to a singular choice in the overwhelming majority of cases. that's a shitload of information discarded, to put it crassly. the neat thing about conjoint is that it multiplexes the choice-making (when designed well), so that the choice burden scales reasonably while also better representing collective choice. nothing is going to be perfect, but conjoint could potentially be better than all current systems, probably by an order of magnitude or more. it's relatively complicated, so yes, 'experts' (i disdain this term, frankly) could in theory manipulate the system, but transparency of voting data (just like now) and survey design (the more likely bias vector) would make that difficult. transparency would allow competing independent journalists, academics/researchers, political analysts, etc. to weigh in and balance out biases (not perfectly of course), as well as verify results.
stocknoob 5y ago
Referendums exist to get a state-wide policy change. In the last election, historically conservative states voted for liberal policies like legalized marijuana, $15 min wage, etc. For politicians, for me, it's more about (perceived) character vs. their stated policies.
- clairity 5y ago
  you could certainly include character traits among choice decisions, but that's more fraught by subjectivity. that said, that's the magic of conjoint done well: turning subjective hidden preferences into (more) objective choice revelation. currently, there is no option to choose a candidate supporting marijuana legalization, $15 minimum wage, pro-life, and pro-gun policies (as an example), since we practically only have two relatively fixed packages of pre-ordained, all-or-nothing policy positions to choose from. revealed preferences would pressure parties into fielding candidates that better match the non-partisan preferences of constituents. or better yet, it would lead to the waning of the two-party system altogether, toward a more direct representative democracy.
hollasch 5y ago
That would work if all candidates are interchangeable if they assert the same plank. In practice, however, candidates X and Y may both have identical planks but wildly different levels of efficacy. People aren't machines.
emaginniss 5y ago
Sorry, but I think that's a terrible idea. Unless we're talking about ballot initiatives, I would hate for us to focus more on policy-based voting. What we should be doing as citizens is voting for someone based on our belief that they will represent our interests in the long-term. If you vote for someone solely because they agree with you on a couple of issues, you could be voting in someone truly reprehensible. I would prefer to vote in someone with integrity that I disagree with than someone untrustworthy that says the things I want to hear. Additionally, all of this ignores the possibility that a representative could change their stance on an issue after receiving more information on an issue. Presidents and Supreme Court justices have changes their stances once their terms have begun or events have taken place during their time in office. I would hate a system that relies on tightly binding the representatives to narrow definitions of hot-button issue stances.

godelski 5y ago

I honestly think it is very difficult to determine what voters' actual preferences are. I mean think of your standard political compass tests. Or even Meyer Briggs. They can change day to day or mood to mood and lots of questions tend to be leading. While I love the idea, I think logistically it would be a nightmare and greatly reduce transparency. It would also be far more vulnerable to so called experts manipulating the system if they aren't acting in good faith.

clairity 5y ago
it's exceedingly difficult to fairly aggregate voter preferences, but all current voting systems seem to reduce all that complexity down to a singular choice in the overwhelming majority of cases. that's a shitload of information discarded, to put it crassly. the neat thing about conjoint is that it multiplexes the choice-making (when designed well), so that the choice burden scales reasonably while also better representing collective choice. nothing is going to be perfect, but conjoint could potentially be better than all current systems, probably by an order of magnitude or more. it's relatively complicated, so yes, 'experts' (i disdain this term, frankly) could in theory manipulate the system, but transparency of voting data (just like now) and survey design (the more likely bias vector) would make that difficult. transparency would allow competing independent journalists, academics/researchers, political analysts, etc. to weigh in and balance out biases (not perfectly of course), as well as verify results.

stocknoob 5y ago

Referendums exist to get a state-wide policy change. In the last election, historically conservative states voted for liberal policies like legalized marijuana, $15 min wage, etc. For politicians, for me, it's more about (perceived) character vs. their stated policies.

clairity 5y ago
you could certainly include character traits among choice decisions, but that's more fraught by subjectivity. that said, that's the magic of conjoint done well: turning subjective hidden preferences into (more) objective choice revelation. currently, there is no option to choose a candidate supporting marijuana legalization, $15 minimum wage, pro-life, and pro-gun policies (as an example), since we practically only have two relatively fixed packages of pre-ordained, all-or-nothing policy positions to choose from. revealed preferences would pressure parties into fielding candidates that better match the non-partisan preferences of constituents. or better yet, it would lead to the waning of the two-party system altogether, toward a more direct representative democracy.

hollasch 5y ago

That would work if all candidates are interchangeable if they assert the same plank. In practice, however, candidates X and Y may both have identical planks but wildly different levels of efficacy. People aren't machines.

emaginniss 5y ago

Sorry, but I think that's a terrible idea. Unless we're talking about ballot initiatives, I would hate for us to focus more on policy-based voting. What we should be doing as citizens is voting for someone based on our belief that they will represent our interests in the long-term. If you vote for someone solely because they agree with you on a couple of issues, you could be voting in someone truly reprehensible. I would prefer to vote in someone with integrity that I disagree with than someone untrustworthy that says the things I want to hear. Additionally, all of this ignores the possibility that a representative could change their stance on an issue after receiving more information on an issue. Presidents and Supreme Court justices have changes their stances once their terms have begun or events have taken place during their time in office. I would hate a system that relies on tightly binding the representatives to narrow definitions of hot-button issue stances.