42 ms·

Ranked-Choice Voting Is More Democratic, Not Less

• refurb 4y ago
  I mean SF right now has a DA that won simply by default through ranked choice voting. And he’s about to be recalled. It may help but clearly bad people get into office anyways.
  • DrewRWx 4y ago
    It would help if they weren't being sandbagged by the SFPD.
• alexnewman 4y ago
  Since liberals and progressives always suggest alternative voting schemes, clearly California or SF should beta test them. In Sf we’ve had a bunch of recalls since tank choice voting was adopted. Be interesting what your criteria for success would be. I tend to think america suffers from too much democracy and any restriction on voting is considered outright racism. This seems odd to me.
  • zaik 4y ago
    > any restriction on voting What kind of restriction do you propose?
    • alexnewman 4y ago
      Requiring some form of public service. For instance serving in the fire department. Laws could be passed protecting individuals rights to serve. Special gov’t subsidies could be created so that low income individuals could have real financial benefit for this service. It could be win/win
    • sokoloff 4y ago
      For federal elections, being an adult citizen and casting a single vote to be counted in the precinct containing your permanent residence. For state, county, and local elections, being an adult permanent, lawful resident in that place and casting a single vote to be counted in the precinct containing your permanent residence. I personally support giving released felons the right to vote (and would include currently incarcerated felons whose sentence will expire during the term covered by the election), but believe this is a matter for each state to decide (consistent with Article I and II).
      • alexnewman 4y ago
        same, i think we could even pay these felons to serve as firefighters, or other social services so they could learn valuable skills in exchange for the returning of this right
      • Jcowell 4y ago
        How is this different from what we have now ?
        • sokoloff 4y ago
          It's not that different; it represents an enumeration of what I think are/propose to be the proper restrictions on voting. Some people believe that non-citizen permanent residents should be able to vote in federal elections. Others believe that undocumented permanent residents should be able to vote in state/local elections. Others believe that incarcerated felons should be able to vote. Likely others believe that minors should be able to vote. We should have these discussions, agree on what restrictions we want to impose, and implement them. If you decide to prevent anyone from voting, that's definitionally a restriction on voting.
          • Izkata 4y ago
            Just to be clear since you skipped this subset: It's already the case that non-citizen permanent residents can vote in some local (not federal) elections. https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_permitting_noncitizens_to_vote_in_the_United_States https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_permitting_noncitizens_to_vote_...
  • jibalt 4y ago
    Restricting POC from voting is indeed racism and the U.S. has a long history of it.
• throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  Monkeying around with small knobs and switches to make marginal changes with how government is run and how people are represented is not going to change the fact that large swaths of the population have ideas and values that are fundamentally incompatible with other swaths of the population. That said, I can see ranked choice voting being a huge improvement to state and local elections in one party states where you basically can't run as the other party without taking a huge hit right off the bat which disadvantages moderate candidates who want to challenge incumbents.
  • manholio 4y ago
    That's an overly simplistic perspective that ignores how the political process itself shapes the choices and opinions of people. For an extreme example, in the democratic part of his rise to power, Hitler never called for war with Europe. As soon as he gained power, he instituted mass propaganda and suppressed any dissent, so by the time he started annexing and invading Austria and Poland he was enjoying real and massive popular support. A very similar story with Putin unfolded in the last 20 years, a crescendo of democratic erosion, stifling of dissent, revisionist nationalism, militarism and finally mass murder. The Russian people went alongside Putin every step of the road. The hope here is that by tinkering with subtle features of the political system, it's less politically profitable to push extreme "us versus them" narratives; that is, candidates that are palatable to the majority gain the upper hand against those that have the support of the most extreme, well organized and motivated minority.
    • lapcat 4y ago
      > As soon as he gained power, he instituted mass propaganda and suppressed any dissent, so by the time he started annexing and invading Austria and Poland he was enjoying real and massive popular support. He was enjoying real and massive popular support before he gained power, otherwise he never would have gained power democratically in the first place. He didn't have majority support, but no political party in Germany at the time had majority support.
  • viraptor 4y ago
    > have ideas and values that are fundamentally incompatible with other swaths of the population. Do they though? If you have a system making another party practically impossible, and make it in the interest of the parties to create division whenever needed (bathrooms...), it's not really clear how incompatible the views are. We could find that a lot of the division was manufactured so that people are strongly against something because they don't have good reasons to be for the other group.
• h2odragon 4y ago
  We can't count paper "yes/no" votes in a way that everyone is happy with. Something more complicated that requires math? How're we going to convince anybody that the results are fair? Let them calculate the totals themselves?
  • ObiWanFrijoles 4y ago
    Unfortunately, people don't trust what they can't understand easily either, which is why I think math based voting techniques aren't so popular.
    • throwaway0a5e 4y ago
      Trust is a requirement of a voting system (or any other system that is entrusted with controlling who will government) if we want a stable society. So we either need to teach people to understand it or find a way to make them trust something they don't understand. The religion playbook is useful for the latter approach but if the goal is to make people trust what they don't understand but we've been doing pretty much the opposite real hard for the past ~10yr.
      • mrguyorama 4y ago
        Our current system is stupidly simple and yet a quarter of the country still doesn't trust it.
        • throwaway0a5e 4y ago
          It's not the mechanics of the system it's the institutions executing them that are distrusted.
  • roenxi 4y ago
    You have a system that, according to the natural balances of the incentives, sets up two sides to fight with everything they've got. And everyone, mysteriously, is fighting tooth and nail. Switching to a system where everyone can cooperate and agree to elect one person may actually make everyone happy, even if people don't understand the maths that well. The natural state of America isn't two divided halves. It is either one rather united entity or 100s of rather crazy squabbling tribes. The 2-party thing is wildly artificial and would probably dissolve without the support of the voting system.
• thunderbird120 4y ago
  Approval voting is simultaneously simpler to understand, more effective in achieving results voters are happy with, and is inherently de-polarizing for obvious reasons. It's also very easy to understand why someone won when the winning criteria is "be the person that the largest number of voters are okay with".
  • manholio 4y ago
    Approval voting is very sensitive to strategic voting. Outside of toy elections where people are altruistically trying to find the best candidate, it reverts to similar dynamics as First-Past-the-Post.
    • CarVac 4y ago
      Has this been demonstrated?
      • manholio 4y ago
        I can't be bothered to search for academic papers, but I've seen it use in real elections to designate party candidates. Voters were absolutely rabid, marking exclusively for candidates from their group. The largest group gets a clean slate and the unaligned voters, instead of acting like swings, are simply ignored.
        • ZeroGravitas 4y ago
          This misses the point dramatically. If someone is favoured by a large enough group, they're supposed to win. The point is what happens when people aren't fanatical but are forced to vote as if they were.
          • manholio 4y ago
            The point is to have fair representation. If a 30% fanatical minority can get a 100% clean slate for its candidates by voting strategically, AV fails. In a single winner election AV makes coordination among moderates somewhat easier, so it's an improvement, but still inferior to Ranked Choice/STV with multi-member districts.
• Gwypaas 4y ago
  Or use a system which enables proportional representation. Then the totally incompatible viewpoints will both have an outlet to congregate around and an arena to discuss. Thus also making sure that one of the larger parties can't get co-opted by for example the Trumpism movement inside it. In a proportional system that would have been it's own party. Case in point, how most nationalistic parties in Europe have stopped at 10-25% of the votes depending on country, thus having influence but not dictating it.
• coldcode 4y ago
  It is expressly illegal in Florida.
  • chrononaut 4y ago
    Wow, TIL. https://reason.com/2022/04/28/florida-tennessee-ban-ranked-choice-voting-despite-citizen-support/ https://reason.com/2022/04/28/florida-tennessee-ban-ranked-c...
  • the_only_law 4y ago
    Florida is actually pretty big on banning stuff they don’t like. Was shocked to hear I can’t but 95% everclear (not that I wanted to before learning of that). I’m still floored at how many things get banned in Florida that are a.o.k. In much deeper conserve states. I lived in SC for several years and it felt less conservative than Florida in many ways.
• shafyy 4y ago
  The two biggest problems in US politics are the two-party system and unproprotional representation. I mean, even in European countries it's hard to say you support a specific party (e.g. the Greens in Germany), because you'll never agree with 100% of their politics. Just having two parties and needing to commit to one? That's fucking insane.
  • manholio 4y ago
    The two party system is a direct result of the voting methods that are being used.
    • jabl 4y ago
      Well, the two-party system is a result of having single-winner districts. Countries with multi-winner districts tend to be the ones were many parties are viable.
    • crowbahr 4y ago
      In that the electoral college exists? Sure. In that if we did proportional voting different candidates would be elected? Probably. Then again somehow we managed to elect Eric Adams in NYC despite him being the worst option.
      • JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > we managed to elect Eric Adams in NYC despite him being the worst option “Worst” as in favoured by every borough except the Manhattan political elite, with “Garcia’s support [being] strongly correlated with median household income…she topped 40 percent in each of the city’s five wealthiest Assembly districts” [1]. (Disclaimer: I probably align with the Manhattan political elite.) [1] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-eric-adams-won-the-new-york-city-mayoral-primary/amp/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-eric-adams-won-the-...
  • tootie 4y ago
    But does multiparty actually result in better outcomes? It's not like any parliamentary country has such a rich array of options. I think most max out at 4 with right-leaning and left-leaning parties forming fragile coalitions that cost a huge amount of energy to negotiate. I think RCV is a net win and we actually did it for the mayoral primary here in NYC and I think it functioned well but the winner was still the most mild and obvious candidate. I think it will produce a very marginal benefit for voters.
• qwerty456127 4y ago
  Is it possible to change the system so alternative parties would have real weight? Is it possible (or even beneficial) to move extremes out of the 2 major parties to separate extreme parties to have "rational conservatives" and "reasonable liberals" separate from "gun nuts" and tax maniacs?
  • jibalt 4y ago
    The "gun nuts" and "tax maniacs" are in the same party ... see the recent GOP tax cut that transferred trillions of tax burden from the uber rich to the middle class.
  • obelos 4y ago
    Not without changing our voting. The equilibrium point of our choose-one, winner-take-all plurality voting system naturally cultivates two-party dominance.
    • qwerty456127 4y ago
      I know, that's why I ask: is such a voting system possible?
      • clolege 4y ago
        Cardinal voting methods eliminate the spoiler effect, which is one of the biggest obstacles that 3rd party candidates face right now. It would let people support any number of alternative candidates without detracting from their support of "safe" candidates.
• lapcat 4y ago
  The linked article is somewhat bizarre. It says "Many who voted for Lamont in the primary may have switched to Lieberman in the general election to ensure his victory over Republican Alan Schlesinger." That's pure insanity. The 2006 Connecticut Senate election results were 50% Lieberman (I), 40% Lamont (D), 10% Schlesinger (R). The Republican was a non-factor who had no chance to win. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_United_States_Senate_election_in_Connecticut https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_United_States_Senate_elec... Joe Lieberman was the longtime, well-known incumbent and former Vice Presidential nominee. That 2006 election didn't change the country in the least; it was just more of the same old, same old.
  • ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    Aren't you supporting their point? You vote for the boring candidate because otherwise you might be wasting your vote. But maybe you really want a change, but the system discourages that by threatening you with a very unpopular option winning if you split the vote.
    • lapcat 4y ago
      I don't understand. The vote was split between Democrats Lieberman and Lamont. Nobody voted for Lieberman because they were worried Schlesinger would win. Lamont himself beat Schlesinger by 30%. As the well-known longtime incumbent, Lieberman was ahead in the polls the entire general election. This was a reelection campaign, which he won. Anyone who wanted change could and did vote for Lamont.
      • ZeroGravitas 4y ago
        You're not even counting the second preference of that 10% who voted Schlesinger which is enough on its own to put the race on a knife edge with a decent voting system. Imagine a system where it was beneficial for someone to appeal to both sides? This is why its touted as a polarization reduction measure.
        • lapcat 4y ago
• clejack 4y ago
  I think we would be better off taking the notion of 'state's rights', expanding it to 'city's rights', doing away with governors, and modifying Congress to compensate. Target federal power at concerns that cross cities and maintenance of current rights. Guarantee free travel across city lines and free engagement in legal activities in whatever city a person is standing in, and people will be free to choose their own destiny so to speak. The issue is not simply choice of candidates, it is that certain groups within the population have fundamental political differences that can't be compromised away. The political extremist see it as their objective to save everyone from themselves. See conservatives wanting to stop people from traveling to get abortions. See liberals insisting that abortion be available even where large parts of the population have religious beliefs that are against them. Doing this at the scale of cities makes it easier for individuals to escape from areas that they find objectionable while still not having to travel so far that it's difficult to maintain their current jobs and relationships. Don't want to deal with primitive conservative ideology? Move to the city. Don't want to deal with liberal snowflakes? Move out of the city. I'm sure independent areas will crop up as well.
  • vehemenz 4y ago
    This sounds like a nightmare. Following this reasoning, all children would be subject the whims of their backwards city or rural enclave. Parents will have more of an ability to brainwash their kids, I suppose, but that's not what we usually mean by "liberty." We've already seen what happens at the state level (abortion, creationism). Allowing even smaller populations to further insulate themselves will only accelerate the cultural, intellectual, and moral decline of the Republican voter base. I'd rather see the government work to bring these people dignified lives, i.e., solving the problem instead of giving up.
    • ericmay 4y ago
      Right, but then you also subject yourself to the whims of the federal government once “people I don’t like” get in charge. Democracy functions better on smaller, more homogeneous scales.
    • aqsalose 4y ago
• ransom1538 4y ago
  There is a bit if confusion here. America isn't a democracy. It is a republic. We elect idiots that just do not represent us. We need to vote on issues directly and remove representatives. We have computers now. We don't need a representative to travel to DC during the winter to cast our vote. Vote on all issues. Stop parties and proxies.
  • tokai 4y ago
    Just stop. That 'isn't a democracy' is such a trite lie, that only makes sense if you redefine all the terms from what they are commonly understood. USA is a (flawed) democracy. Republics can be democratic, autocratic, etc. The founding fathers were against direct democracy, not representative democracy.
  • oneoff786 4y ago
    Ah yes. Let’s settle it with Twitter mobs
  • jabl 4y ago
    Ideally the idea of representative government is that the legislators would have the time to study the issues before voting on them. Direct democracy is problematic because most people can't be bothered to read up on the issues, or even bother to vote in most cases. It would just give way too much power to lunatics with too much free time.
    • cies 4y ago
      In Switzerland it works. Maybe the Swiss are perceptually less moronic than the USians? It's not "by denfinition problematic".
  • jibalt 4y ago
    America is a democracy and a republic. Ask any competent political scientist.
  • JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > We elect idiots that just do not represent us. We need to vote on issues directly and remove representatives. We need to teach the Federalist papers. They observe “as long as people hold differing opinions, have differing amounts of wealth and own differing amount of property, they will continue to form alliances with people who are most similar to them and they will sometimes work against the public interest and infringe upon the rights of others” [1]. This majoritarianism failure is visible in a few states’ ballot initiatives’ chaos. Anyone calling for direct democracy should be able to account for its historical failure. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10
• bnralt 4y ago
  > Many who voted for Lamont in the primary may have switched to Lieberman in the general election to ensure his victory over Republican Alan Schlesinger. That's a really weird way to frame things, and suggests to me the author didn't look into the election before writing it. The general election was very much one between Lieberman and Lamont, with Schlesinger getting less than 10% of the vote. > Voters have no incentive to consider alternatives, because a vote for a third alternative would be “wasted:” In fact, it might help elect the major party candidate whom the voter most strongly opposes. There are many races where one party doesn't bother to run a candidate where this isn't an issue, yet third-parties don't have much success there either. The D.C. legislature (called the city council, but functionally acts like a state legislature) has two seats that Democrats aren't legally allowed to have, and that Republicans at the moment aren't able to win because the city largely opposes them. Yet third-party candidates haven't held the seat in decades (they've been held by independent candidates). The author brings up examples from states where ranked-choice choice voting has been implemented, but they're all examples of a candidate from one of the two major parties winning. I doubt ranked-choice voting is going to bring about the kind of transformational change its advocates claim. The evidence so far from the places that have implemented it don't show a huge amount of difference.
  • RugnirViking 4y ago
    why are there only two parties in the US, wheras there are many places that have 5 or 6 at least parties in countries as small as denmark or as large as germany?
    • inetknght 4y ago
      As @jasode said in another comment [0]: > In terms of cause & effect, the USA's 2-party system is the effect caused by the voting system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31503357 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31503357
    • bnralt 4y ago
      As I mentioned in my post, why aren't third parties successful in places where first past the post isn't an issue (seats where one party doesn't contest it, seats where one party isn't legally allowed to hold them, places that implemented ranked choice voting)? When first past the post is removed we're still not seeing other parties succeed. As to why we only see two parties, I think it's for a couple of reasons. One, the parties are pretty open and just about anyone can run in them, so there's little use for a third party. Two, the two parties have become culturally entrenched - many people see themselves as Democrats or Republicans, not just people who happen to vote for Democrats or Republicans. And three, prominent national third-parties have been run so poorly they've made people more likely to anyone (including independents) over third parties. Independent candidates have actually had much more success (even in places with first past the post) than third-party candidates.
• dqpb 4y ago
  I think the right way to roll this out is to create a new party as an abstraction layer between the new proposed system and the existing system. Within the party, you can use whatever voting mechanism you like to set the agenda of the party and elect party leaders. If the mechanism is good enough, you ought to be able to attract enough members to win a standard legacy election.
• LordKeren 4y ago
  I view the electoral college system as the canary in the coal mine for voting changes in America. No honest person who is informed about how the electoral college works thinks it’s fair. There are so many possible bad outcomes of it and there are no positives over a direct vote. If we can’t dismantle the most glaring issue in elections that is the electoral college, I’m not holding my breath for the kind of sweeping reform that would be needed for something as foreign (to the American voting base) as the ranked choice voting
  • RhysU 4y ago
    I think there are positives over a direct vote. I like that presidential candidates have to consider the desires of smaller states instead of simply playing to large cities. I think that it produces better outcomes for the country than a direct alternative.
    • oneoff786 4y ago
      I’m not a fan of my vote not mattering at all because my state is solidly one color or another. Meanwhile rando’s in Pennsylvania matter immensely, and it’s largely just a race to see which side can rally enough people from either the city or the surrounding areas to go to the polls.
      • ajmurmann 4y ago
        That's also why complaining about voter turnout in the US is at best annoying and worst dishonest. In most states, including some of the larger ones, it wouldn't change the outcome at all if 100% voted. It's actually surprising that turnout is as high as it is.
      • RhysU 4y ago
        I am from Pennsylvania but I have lived many places. I assure you that the randos are everywhere.
        • kristiandupont 4y ago
• FreelanceX 4y ago
  There is a much simpler system with a proven track record, used in many democratic countries: two-rounds voting [1]. Just vote a second time for one of the two top candidates if no candidate reached 50% of more. I'm convinced this would deeply, radically change the US. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-round_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-round_system
  • epage 4y ago
    We have run offs in Texas but get extremely low turnout partially because they are not advertised, either by the government or the candidates. I can't imagine its cheap either, for the government, candidates, or the voters. This is why I prefer calling the version of Ranked Choice Voting I seeing being pushed as Instant Runoff because it makes how it works and the advantages clear.
  • soneca 4y ago
    That's the system we have in Brazil and we don't have a less polarized political situation currently, neither a stronger democracy, I believe.
    • vslira 4y ago
      Hey, I recently wrote a post about an idea on this: https://blog.vslira.net/2022/05/negative-voting.html?m=1 https://blog.vslira.net/2022/05/negative-voting.html?m=1 What do you think? Basically second round stays the same, but on 1st you can either vote for or against a candidate, “against” votes simply deduct from their “for” votes
      • soneca 4y ago
        My first reaction is a sum of “stick with the devil you know” and “the simpler the better”. So I would be against changing. I like what we have in Brazil (for executive elections), and I think it is better than what they have in the US. But I don’t think changing the US system to two rounds will make things better there. That might sound contradictory, but I think sticking with a voting system has benefits for democracy, even if, in isolation, that system is subpar. Predictability is voting system is very desirable in a democracy, I think. Same with trust. I think we have to improve democracy by other means, not a simple “fix” through a voting system. I don’t know what those other means are. It is a complex system. But I am skeptical that changing voting systems is part of the solution.
• dontbenebby 4y ago
• andrewclunn 4y ago
  Rank choice voting allows flooding the ballot with candidates to downrank another. Approval based voting is far simpler and superior.
• dec0dedab0de 4y ago
  I think it would be better if every election was for multiple offices, and the top 2-5 candidates got those offices. For example, Presidential elections first place would become president, second place would become vice president, and third place would become speaker. Another nice thing we could do is stop listing party on the ballot. Just list names in alphabetical order. Though I think the biggest thing we could do to be "more democratic" is get rid of the 435 limit for the house, and go back one seat per 30,000 people. If we had 10,000 congressmen, they would all more closely represent the area they're from. Maybe up the senate to 10 per state while we're at it. And while I'm throwing out wacky ideas, why not have regional governments that encompass multiple states?. If America was a company, we would be overdue for middle management.
  • idontwantthis 4y ago
    That’s not a wacky idea it’s how presidential elections were originally specified in the Constitution. Look at how badly Jefferson undermined Adams as his VP to see why that was quickly discovered to be a bad idea.
• u2077 4y ago
  For an overview of alternate voting systems, I found this video from Primer highly informative: https://youtu.be/yhO6jfHPFQU https://youtu.be/yhO6jfHPFQU
• superjan 4y ago
  There’s an interesting effect to consider: in the current situation, centrist politicians can use their role as tie-breaker to get the best result for the state they represent. Assuming RCV benefits centrist candidates, a state can improve it’s leverage by switching to RCV. So you don’t need to convince people that it would be fair to switch to RCV, just that it is in their best interest.
• user3939382 4y ago
  I think we could put every American citizen in a hat who: Has voted for the last 3 elections No criminal record Over the age of 25 HS diploma with a 3.0 GPA and pick Congress at random with fixed terms and end up with better than what we have now: a bunch of lying, corrupt careerists that do nothing but serve their corporate donor masters. Contrary to popular belief, you can be incompetent, unintelligent, and bereft of integrity and be rich, I know these people personally. Being rich is not a good litmus test for public office which is what we have now.
  • slackfan 4y ago
    Drop the diploma req, and sure, that's a good idea.
    • jaywalk 4y ago
      At least drop the GPA requirement. I found most homework annoying and unnecessary, so I skipped it but I aced the tests. Frustrated the hell out of my parents and teachers and led to lower overall grades, but I learned everything I needed to and turned out alright in the end.
  • giraffe_lady 4y ago
    We'd probably get better results if we inverted your criteria honestly. Someone who didn't graduate high school and has a criminal record has first-hand experience with the worst our system has to offer, likely close ties to people it is failing badly right now.
    • rPlayer6554 4y ago
      Just because someone has experience with the criminal system doesn't mean they know how to fix it properly
    • dismantlethesun 4y ago
      The high school degree is necessary to ensure the person can understand the choices presented to them. Otherwise they will just be snowed by experts who claim one thing or the other. The lack of a criminal record is necessary won’t just commit fraud or accept bribes from day one. And also overall, people have to accept who is randomly chosen to be the president. Having a criminal with a elementary school education chosen would just lead to riots. It’s one thing if they were elected, but if it’s a choice made by a “random” system then that’s not acceptable.
• stevesearer 4y ago
  I’ve wondered if there would be less polarization if the number of representatives were not fixed at 435 but instead still fixed at 1 representative per 30000 constituents. It was less than 100 years ago that that change was made: https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1901-1950/The-Permanent-Apportionment-Act-of-1929/ https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1901-1950/Th... There would likely be more parties than two at least.
  • burlesona 4y ago
    330M / 30k = 11k representatives. I actually don’t mind that idea, but we’d have to totally reinvent the way the house works if it were to operate that way. As far as voting on ideas that is fine, but the whole committee structure and how legislation is drafted would seem totally unworkable. An in between proposal I’ve heard is to adopt the so-called Wyoming rule and keep a fixed representation of 1 rep per population of <least populated state>. IIRC that would increase the house to around 700 reps, which would change things, but not require total reinvention.
  • Symmetry 4y ago
    Catherine the great tried creating a constituent body for Russia with 10,000 representatives. It didn't go well and soured her on the whole prospect of democracy. Keeping assemblies within at least shouting distance of Dunbar's number seems to make them work much better in practice.
• clarkevans 4y ago
  Ranked Choice does suffer from some mathematical irregularities, see http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/ http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/ (2006) Ranked Choice has had some notable unexpected outcomes, see https://bolson.org/~bolson/2009/20090303_burlington_vt_mayor.html https://bolson.org/~bolson/2009/20090303_burlington_vt_mayor... See also https://www.starvoting.us/ https://www.starvoting.us/ and https://electionscience.org/library/approval-voting/ https://electionscience.org/library/approval-voting/
  • mindslight 4y ago
    Approval voting still suffers from the tyranny of the mainstream parties. There will be conservatives who only vote for Democrats or Republicans, making it so that people who want real change by voting Green/Libertarian would have to not approve-vote their fallback D/R to have any chance of G/L winning. The main utility would be the public referendum on how much support each party has. Score voting collapses to approval voting under strategy. The right answer is "Ranked choice voting", but not with runoff but rather Condorcet. Condorcet specifies that the winner is the candidate who beats every other candidate in a pairwise matching. The single drawback of Condorcet - the possibility of having no Condorcet winner - is overblown. It's the equivalent of a tie in a plurality election. If the current standard tiebreaker mechanism is not good enough (eg another election), then the tie could be broken by taking the same ranked choices and translating them into a heuristic based on approval voting, score voting, etc.
    • obelos 4y ago
      Bullet voting is an overblown “weakness” of Approval and Score. “I only voted for my honest favorite” is not a huge drawback, IMO. Nevertheless, in the actual municipal elections using Approval Voting in St. Louis and Fargo, voters on average approved of more than one candidate. And in Score there is incentive to use middle ratings because not doing so increases the probability that a popular candidate you're lukewarm on gets overtaken by a candidate you deeply dislike. The value of STAR voting is that it reduces even further the incentive to bullet vote. By introducing a Condorcet-esque runoff of the top two finalists, every voter is strongly incentivized to use meaningful middle scores in order to have a say in the outcome of the runoff. IRV/RCV, on the other hand, can punish voters for voting honestly. The more viable candidates there are in the field, the more likely your top ranking for your honest favorite will result in benefitting your least preferred. Given that one of the qualities most every election reform advocate wants is to see a larger field packed with viable candidates, this drawback of IRV is especially detrimental.
• snake_plissken 4y ago
  I'd think an easier change would be to bring back secret voting in Congress, which was effectively eliminated by the use of electronic voting introduced by changes in The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970. It would accomplish two things: lobbyists wouldn't be able to tell who actually voted for legislation and party leadership wouldn't be able to effectively enforce party allegiance through committee assignment and campaign funding. I am sure there are some unforeseen consequences (like would lobbying just be replaced with some kind of real bribery behind the scenes), but not being under the influence of lobbyists and party leadership would allow congress members to truly vote on what they think is in their constituents best interests.
  • Enginerrrd 4y ago
    >but not being under the influence of lobbyists and party leadership would allow congress members to truly vote on what they think is in their constituents best interests. Or, it would allow them to vote in favor of the biggest donors with impunity.
    • BurningFrog 4y ago
      It would also allow them lie to their biggest donor about their vote with impunity.
      • toolz 4y ago
        Unless the donor simply required proof of vote that was established, likely illegally. I find it hard to imagine a voting process that would be controlled by congress, to have annoyingly secure methods to ensure the private nature of the vote. Just look at our current voting machines. They're questionably secure and they're not even remotely as regulated/audited as even our gambling machines.
        • jimkleiber 4y ago
          For me the biggest switch is then I would care less about the individual performance and more about the team performance. Think about sports that have a stronger team component than individual. I think if the team fails, people often demand that lots of people leave the team—coach, owner, captain, etc. Sometimes to fully clean house. For more individual sports, people want that individual to leave. I think governance is more of a team sport than we realize and transparency efforts (congressional stats) make us focus more on the individual wins and less on the team wins. I care more if Congress passes an act I want than I do if my Senator votes in favor of what I want.
• macinjosh 4y ago
  Voting is such a lie. You are given the illusion of choice that is created by two political cartels who only care about power not principles. Voting gives you zero political influence. When you vote you are implying consent to be ruled by anyone that is on that ballot including the bad people. Remember, democracy gave us President Donald Trump. Gotta love it, right?! Right? ... guys?
• managerclass 4y ago
  MA tried to change to ranked choice voting but people didn't vote for it. I'm guessing most at the ballot were confused about what it was and just default voted no.
• brown9-2 4y ago
  Also need to get rid of the filibuster and the Electoral College, which are both anti-democratic. Then possibly abolish the Senate too for the same reason.
• notakio 4y ago
  Our "representative democracy" has been entirely coopted by a single entity which has mastered, through marketing and deception, masking itself as two separate entities. The reality of this entity is that it is uniform, philosophically, intellectually, and in every other manner. They hand the baton of "power" back and forth between themselves, keeping the voting populace as worked up as possible with wedge issues, which neither sub-entity will actually touch, for fear of losing the ability to leverage the wedge issue for division of the ever-decreasing numbers of people who bother to vote. Not content with this opaque "duopoly", the R/D machine has gone way past the line of acceptable behavior in setting up "non-partisan" organizations such as the Commission on Presidential Debates and the Federal Election Commission, which exist entirely to exclude anyone who is not an approved part of either faction of this single entity from basic participation in the election process. While I understand the goal behind the authors advocating RCV, I have no faith that the implementation of of RCV would not be circumvented or counteracted by the existing "duopoly"; they will not give up the stranglehold on power (and money, which is the real goal; controlling 1/3rd of every dollar earned as income and spending it as you are instructed by your masters is not something they will give up lightly) without a fight. Given their total control over the production of legislation, legal interpretation of that legislation, and enforcement of said legislation, they've got a distinct advantage. Honestly, I don't see anything changing in US elections within the remainder of my lifetime; short of a shifting of the balance of power, the likes of which would require "breaking some eggs", their grip is too overpowering to challenge. Team D will continue to demonize Team R, Team R will continue to demonize Team D, and both will quietly do everything in their power to make sure non-D/non-R candidates do not even appear on ballots, much less receive the necessary votes to take office.
  • gryfft 4y ago
    > wedge issues, which neither sub-entity will actually touch Tell that to Citizens United and Roe vs. Wade.
    • notakio 4y ago
      Roe vs. Wade has not actually changed. Once it does, we can "circle back" and discuss the real world changes, which I suspect won't be anywhere near as widespread as we are led to believe. What has happened seems like an intentional distraction being played out; predictably enough, the results are exactly what would be expected; citizens provoked by fear of change rush to the town square to let "the other team" no this is "no bueno". But citizens in the street will always be comfortably ignored by those who purportedly represent them.
• nickdothutton 4y ago
  You can have a 2 party system and still have elections won by someone vaguely centrist in their policies. Both parties have moved toward their respective extremes over the last 20-30 years.
• adolph 4y ago
  Does anyone find it odd that the solutions proposed are to fiddle with the method of voting for a delegate rather than de-delegating in favor of directly voting for or against things? Maybe the problem is the left word in "representative democracy?" I've long loathed Texas' endless parade of constitutional amendments put before the entire state. The matters involved seemed unimportant to me (stuff like allowing railroad widows to collect the pensions of their second spouse). When I think of it in terms of de-delegating decisions, I think "why don't I and everyone else get a direct vote for or against a budget item?"
• graderjs 4y ago
  I don't think this is caused by the voting system. Polarization is a function of where the cultural discourse is at. By culture I don't just mean the arts. I think it's natural for any culture to go through a time of division, polarization, and conflicting narratives as a culture and the people collectively wrestle with their identity, and try to work out where they stand. I think it's natural polarization would occur at a time when previous notions of authority and truth are being revised. I think it's only bad if that "growth process", that any culture must go through periodically, is corrupted / co-opted to artificially maintain a persistent state of division.
• loup-vaillant 4y ago
  Before we even think of tweaking the voting system, it might be best to go back to a simple implementation people trust: paper. As a programmer, I understand that only us really control the software behind voting system. Most folks don't have the slightest idea how it actually works, and if there's a bug (or worse, a vulnerability) the consequences might ripple nationwide. With paper, you get some failed counts here and there, but nothing major, and such errors tend to average out. And of course, people can understand how it work, and how to make it more accurate and reliable. Once we go back to paper, a ranking system becomes quite a bit harder to implement. Much easier however is to give a yes/no answer for each candidate. Easy to count, and the end result for each candidate is how many of the voters support them. Throw in a void clause if no candidate manages to get some threshold of support (say 50%), and you even get to take "all politicians are bastard" votes into account (something that ranked choice does not have). Alternatively, we could could give each candidate a degree of support, ranging from "unacceptable" to "ideal", and elect the candidate with the best median support. Slightly more complex, but quite a bit closer to ranked choice voting, and you keep the "all politicians are bastards" votes.
  • bogota 4y ago
    How does ranked choice become hard on paper? At the end of the day the tally all is input into a computer anyway. Im sure different sums of yes and no answers could be reduced to a single number if you are arguing that tallying votes would be harder in the system
    • obelos 4y ago
      RCV lacks the quality of “precinct summability” which means that all ballots have to be centrally tabulated. This is a serious security issue because there is a single point of failure for an attacker to undermine auditing measures. Here in Oregon, for example, state law requires that tabulation for a county's precincts must be done by the county clerk using nothing more than the information on the ballots cast in their county. This ensures that no one centralized authority can be compromised to throw a state-wide election. It also means there's no legal way to tally RCV elections in, for example, cities that span multiple counties or in state legislative districts that span multiple counties.
• mariodiana 4y ago
  If you want to de-polarize America, bring back meaningful federalism. The government in Washington is no longer federal in its character. It has become the national government our founders warned us about. The individual 50 states ought to be doing as much as possible, and the federal government as little as possible. But that's not what we've got. We're a nation of some 330 million people, of diverse religions and ethnicities, geographies and economies. Who in his right mind believes one-size-fits-all solutions should be expanded to include every aspect of life? We need political diversity to go along with the diversity I just described. What that means is that Americans are going to have to get used to leaving one another alone. In other words, New Yorkers are going to have to allow Alabamans to live in their "ignorance," and Mississippians are going to have to allow Californians to live in their "sin." The upside of this political diversity is what some have characterized as "50 laboratories for democracy." Each state will have the benefit to try, and to succeed or fail; and, just as importantly, to see what neighboring states are doing and learn thereof. But I'm arguing that no shuffling of chairs at the national level will do anything to reduce polarization. We need to stay out of one another's business. Good fences make good neighbors.
  • pjc50 4y ago
    That collapsed in the Civil War for well-known reasons. Then a second wave of federal intervention was required during the Great Depression. The problem with allowing states to fail - to become failed states - is not just that it costs a lot of human lives, but that they're bordering the non-failed states.
    • falcrist 4y ago
      I would argue that the first major failure was with the Articles of Confederation, which had to be replaced in part because states couldn't even agree to pay soldiers. Everything has to be unanimous. It didn't work. You need a central government.
  • heavymark 4y ago
    A problem with each state doing their own thing, is then the state can take away human rights, and wealthly people can simply move, less privileged people may be unable to. Of course the constitution is suppose to help with that by requiring all states treat everyone equally but of course they couldn't predict everything and states can simply interpret it as they see fit, so the federal government is needed, but how much is anyones guess. I don't see that de-polarizing america, rather just would be more silencing those in the minority of each state.
• drewg123 4y ago
  I think the biggest step towards the current political polarization was the FCC's revocation of the fairness doctrine in 1987. This lead to conservative talk radio's rise, which lead to the mainstreaming of right wing propaganda. I'm not sure how we could "undo" this, given the decentralized social media we have today..
• GoodJokes 4y ago
• bradgranath 4y ago
  Which is why the Republican party will never agree to using it.