3 ms·

I dont think those statements are connected at all. I dont know what adequate representation is but I'll assume something like a similarity measure over prefere

I dont think those statements are connected at all. I dont know what adequate representation is but I'll assume something like a similarity measure over preferences. The claim of no nuance is applied to parties. But parties aren't voted for candidates are. So sure, parties aggregate the preferences of their members and the distribution of members has some variance. So parties are bad because voters are different? And the solution is, what, smaller parties with less variance? The best political party has 1 member? I can't differentiate between the utility of gaining a want or avoiding a harm, so Im not sure what the point is when you introduce the damage vs good comparison. Seems like pretending "zero" has meaning. When really only differences in utility have meaning.

JohnFen 3y ago
> But parties aren't voted for candidates are. I think that most people vote based on party affiliation rather than the candidates. At least, that's what I see. > So parties are bad because voters are different? No, parties are bad because they reduce the variety of candidates. In the US, you effectively only have a choice between two candidates for most elections. The Democrat and the Republican. If you find them both objectionable, then tough luck. This isn't by accident, this is the result of the two parties working together to shut out any other "competitors". > The best political party has 1 member? I would say so, yes, since that's the same as no parties whatsoever. But, realistically, that's not ever going to happen. > Im not sure what the point is when you introduce the damage vs good comparison. The point is that it's common that you have to vote for someone you object to, because if you don't then someone you object to even more is more likely to win. It would be healthier if it were possible to have candidates that you're actively in favor of instead. But if you don't philosophically align with the Dems or Reps, that's not an option. So every election becomes a depressing expression of futility.

JohnFen 3y ago

> But parties aren't voted for candidates are. I think that most people vote based on party affiliation rather than the candidates. At least, that's what I see. > So parties are bad because voters are different? No, parties are bad because they reduce the variety of candidates. In the US, you effectively only have a choice between two candidates for most elections. The Democrat and the Republican. If you find them both objectionable, then tough luck. This isn't by accident, this is the result of the two parties working together to shut out any other "competitors". > The best political party has 1 member? I would say so, yes, since that's the same as no parties whatsoever. But, realistically, that's not ever going to happen. > Im not sure what the point is when you introduce the damage vs good comparison. The point is that it's common that you have to vote for someone you object to, because if you don't then someone you object to even more is more likely to win. It would be healthier if it were possible to have candidates that you're actively in favor of instead. But if you don't philosophically align with the Dems or Reps, that's not an option. So every election becomes a depressing expression of futility.