3 ms·

> They don't have less political power, they are either choosing or neglecting to use the power they were provided. That sounds like victim blaming. If more p

> They don't have less political power, they are either choosing or neglecting to use the power they were provided. That sounds like victim blaming. If more people "neglect" to use their power, or if the people who "neglect" to use their power are those who disproportionately prefer one party over another, then you're changing the outcome of elections based on the new voting system's inability to capture the true intent of voters (rather than improving its accuracy). > if that's not your implication than what's the point in bringing it up? I think it is still on-topic for this article/discussion to suggest that other reforms would be even better, but I also think that some people under RCV will be worse off than other people, and they will be different people to those who were worse off under FPTP. Like I say, that might be a price worth paying if there are fewer worse-off people under RCV, but we need to be honest with ourselves about that (and aim for voting systems where the fewest possible people have less voting power than their fellow citizens).

lovich 4y ago
> That sounds like victim blaming. If more people "neglect" to use their power, or if the people who "neglect" to use their power are those who disproportionately prefer one party over another, then you're changing the outcome of elections based on the new voting system's inability to capture the true intent of voters (rather than improving its accuracy). Is there any point where you would concede it was up to the individuals agency? I’m not trying to be combative, but whether or not you think this point exists matters a lot for continuing discourse
- dane-pgp 4y ago
  If the voting process was made as simple as possible (taking into account the best available evidence from user testing, psychology, linguistics, and so on) and someone decided to deliberately disregard the instructions given, and avoided all efforts to be educated on the topic, then at that point I would agree that the individual's agency was at fault. To be clear, I don't think that such an individual would "deserve" disenfranchisement as a "punishment" for their actions, since voting is a fundamental right that needs proper due process to remove from someone; it would just be an unfortunate practical consequence of their poor decisions. Let me reverse the question though: Is there any point where you would concede that the voting system was unacceptably flawed if it caused one or more people to mistakenly fill out a ballot that didn't reflect their true intention (or made them choose not to vote at all)?
woojoo666 4y ago
> I also think that some people under RCV will be worse off than other people, and they will be different people to those who were worse off under FPTP. I think I see what you are saying. Essentially the "effort ceiling" for FPTP is very low - everybody gets a single choice. But RCV raises the ceiling, so that high-effort voters have more power than low-effort voters (people who still only put a single choice). This gives advantage to people who have the time and resources to research candidates more thoroughly and make more detailed votes

lovich 4y ago

> That sounds like victim blaming. If more people "neglect" to use their power, or if the people who "neglect" to use their power are those who disproportionately prefer one party over another, then you're changing the outcome of elections based on the new voting system's inability to capture the true intent of voters (rather than improving its accuracy). Is there any point where you would concede it was up to the individuals agency? I’m not trying to be combative, but whether or not you think this point exists matters a lot for continuing discourse

dane-pgp 4y ago
If the voting process was made as simple as possible (taking into account the best available evidence from user testing, psychology, linguistics, and so on) and someone decided to deliberately disregard the instructions given, and avoided all efforts to be educated on the topic, then at that point I would agree that the individual's agency was at fault. To be clear, I don't think that such an individual would "deserve" disenfranchisement as a "punishment" for their actions, since voting is a fundamental right that needs proper due process to remove from someone; it would just be an unfortunate practical consequence of their poor decisions. Let me reverse the question though: Is there any point where you would concede that the voting system was unacceptably flawed if it caused one or more people to mistakenly fill out a ballot that didn't reflect their true intention (or made them choose not to vote at all)?

woojoo666 4y ago

> I also think that some people under RCV will be worse off than other people, and they will be different people to those who were worse off under FPTP. I think I see what you are saying. Essentially the "effort ceiling" for FPTP is very low - everybody gets a single choice. But RCV raises the ceiling, so that high-effort voters have more power than low-effort voters (people who still only put a single choice). This gives advantage to people who have the time and resources to research candidates more thoroughly and make more detailed votes