5 ms·
They wouldn't! That's the downside. Or maybe not a downside -- there could be an even stronger incentive for politicians to get stuff done. Since voters would h
by granfalloon 4y ago
They wouldn't! That's the downside. Or maybe not a downside -- there could be an even stronger incentive for politicians to get stuff done. Since voters would have to make their decisions based entirely actual results, and not an individual politician's voting record, the politicians might have a stronger incentive to build coalitions and influence other politicians' votes.
My half-baked point is that the harm of voters NOT having access to this information is less than the harm of lobbyists and major donors having access to it.
- bobthepanda 4y agoThat doesn’t really work though, people vote for their rep, not some amorphous party blob. On the other hand, it gives pols plausible deniability that they aren’t getting bought out.
- larkost 4y agoI should point out that places like Germany do vote for the party, not the person for positions like Parliament. In each region the parties submit slates of people they would put into the positions if they got all of the votes, and then once people vote they get a proportionate number of their slate into actual offices. There are lots of details here, but it is a system that works.
- bobthepanda 4y agoThey vote for both party and person in MMP. Voters submit both a party list preference and a candidate preference.
- kelseyfrog 4y agoAny differential privacy experts care to weigh in? Is there a differential privacy method that can introduce a specific amount of noise in voting results in order to not fully hide nor fully reveal specific representative voting records?