3 ms·

I think this is a very valid concern, not only for the peaceful transition of power, but also for the pragmatic fact that we will never get off FPTP by replacin

by NickM 4y ago

I think this is a very valid concern, not only for the peaceful transition of power, but also for the pragmatic fact that we will never get off FPTP by replacing it with methods that seem worse to many people. This problem has already happened once in Burlington, VT, where RCV was repealed shortly after it was implemented due to (arguably valid) perceptions of unfairness in the 2009 election there. Say what you want about Approval voting, but this is also one of the areas where Approval voting is clearly better. It's very easy to understand, and much simpler to tabulate the results when it's still just "the person with the most votes wins".

jacques_chester 4y ago
There are more places than Burlington where RCV has been used.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  It works in some places but not others. This shouldn't be surprising; the math works the same everywhere but the perception of fairness is a social and cultural phenomenon.
  - jacques_chester 4y ago
    Australia didn't inherit RCV from the UK. It wasn't present among the convicts. It doesn't magically come from the water supply. It was introduced to replace FPTP. Again: Americans are not a different sort of human from Australians. The problem is that losers are muddying the waters, not that the water was undrinkable by American minds.
    - MichaelCollins 4y ago
      > Again: Americans are not a different sort of human from Australians. I'm not talking about biology, I'm talking about culture. I thought I made that clear, and I'm sure you understand the distinction.
      - jacques_chester 4y ago
        You're nitpicking rhetorical flair instead of refuting the point.
        MichaelCollins 4y ago
        My point is that a voting system being accepted by the Australian public doesn't prove that it would be accepted by the American public, because there are cultural differences between the countries.
        skissane 4y ago
        No denying there are many cultural differences between Australia and the US, but I think the key difference here is not cultural, rather political history. In the contemporary US, the strongest opposition to RCV comes from the political right. In Australia, RCV (or "preferential voting" as we call it) was originally introduced because – at the time – it was viewed as politically beneficial to the right. The 1918 Swan by-election (what Americans would call a "special election") was won by the centre-left Labor Party, despite only receiving a minority of the vote – because the centre-right had split into two separate parties, one with a predominantly urban base (businesspeople, professionals, etc), the other with a predominantly rural base (farmers). The conservative government introduced RCV to reduce the political advantage the centre-left had obtained through greater unity. So, maybe what RCV really needs to succeed in the US, is a split in the GOP (Trumpists vs anti-Trumpists?), so it becomes in the political self-interest of conservatives to support it.
- NickM 4y ago
  Burlington is unusual in that third party candidates are already competitive in Vermont, which means the spoiler effect was more visible from the outset. As RCV proponents continue to incorrectly imply that RCV eliminates the spoiler effect, I expect we’ll see more third party candidates running in other locations and spoiling more elections, leading to an increase in backlash against RCV in the future.

by NickM 4y ago

jacques_chester 4y ago

There are more places than Burlington where RCV has been used.

MichaelCollins 4y ago
It works in some places but not others. This shouldn't be surprising; the math works the same everywhere but the perception of fairness is a social and cultural phenomenon.
- jacques_chester 4y ago
  Australia didn't inherit RCV from the UK. It wasn't present among the convicts. It doesn't magically come from the water supply. It was introduced to replace FPTP. Again: Americans are not a different sort of human from Australians. The problem is that losers are muddying the waters, not that the water was undrinkable by American minds.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    > Again: Americans are not a different sort of human from Australians. I'm not talking about biology, I'm talking about culture. I thought I made that clear, and I'm sure you understand the distinction.
    - jacques_chester 4y ago
      You're nitpicking rhetorical flair instead of refuting the point.
      - MichaelCollins 4y ago
        My point is that a voting system being accepted by the Australian public doesn't prove that it would be accepted by the American public, because there are cultural differences between the countries.
        skissane 4y ago
        No denying there are many cultural differences between Australia and the US, but I think the key difference here is not cultural, rather political history. In the contemporary US, the strongest opposition to RCV comes from the political right. In Australia, RCV (or "preferential voting" as we call it) was originally introduced because – at the time – it was viewed as politically beneficial to the right. The 1918 Swan by-election (what Americans would call a "special election") was won by the centre-left Labor Party, despite only receiving a minority of the vote – because the centre-right had split into two separate parties, one with a predominantly urban base (businesspeople, professionals, etc), the other with a predominantly rural base (farmers). The conservative government introduced RCV to reduce the political advantage the centre-left had obtained through greater unity. So, maybe what RCV really needs to succeed in the US, is a split in the GOP (Trumpists vs anti-Trumpists?), so it becomes in the political self-interest of conservatives to support it.
NickM 4y ago
Burlington is unusual in that third party candidates are already competitive in Vermont, which means the spoiler effect was more visible from the outset. As RCV proponents continue to incorrectly imply that RCV eliminates the spoiler effect, I expect we’ll see more third party candidates running in other locations and spoiling more elections, leading to an increase in backlash against RCV in the future.