4 ms·

> If we had Condorcet voting, we would have elected much more reasonable candidates a long time ago. I don't think that's true. Candidates, even lunatics, adap

> If we had Condorcet voting, we would have elected much more reasonable candidates a long time ago. I don't think that's true. Candidates, even lunatics, adapt their strategy to whatever the voting system happens to be. If a lunatic can win against a sane person in a two-party contest, I have no doubt whatsoever that a lunatic can also win under Condorcet with many more candidates. Condorcet methods could help if the problem was that the preferences of people are not being met. But that is not the problem, that has never been the problem. The problem is that people do not know how to optimize their own self-interest and genuinely prefer simple narratives that tell them what they want to hear, or what the media they listen to tells them to think. Garbage in, garbage out. Doesn't matter what the voting system is.

jlkuester7 3y ago
It is a bit overly simplistic to say that voters are the true problem with American politics. Sure, people are easy to manipulate, and, at the end of the day, voters are the ones actually electing these folks into power. However, the current two-party-system has done a very effective job of eliminating any kind of meaningful choice for voters in most places. (Not saying there are not differences between candidates/parties, but the gap between my policy positions and the positions of either of the candidate is greater than the gap between the policy positions of the two candidates....)
- breuleux 3y ago
  That's not exactly what I want to say. What I am saying is that voters do not know what they are doing. At a glance that might suggest that they are the problem, but only if you think "knowing what they are doing" is a low bar that voters fail to clear. I disagree. The bar is very high. And that's the real problem. Look, choosing a party requires you to figure out which economic policies best spur economic growth, which ones might make the climate crisis worse, what the long term consequences of increased immigration might be, and so on, and so forth. On your time. Through the distorting lens of media. Of course the average voter can't make heads or tails of this stuff. It's not their fault. Even if they could, they wouldn't have time because they work all day. So the best strategy the voter has is not to understand the issues, but to delegate their choice to someone they trust who ostensibly knows the issues. That's media, scientists, influencers, church leaders, etc. Regardless of the voting system, the public opinion will be modulated by the landscape of influencers they trust. If that landscape is broken, the votes will go in the wrong direction regardless of how many choices there are, I'm afraid.

jlkuester7 3y ago

It is a bit overly simplistic to say that voters are the true problem with American politics. Sure, people are easy to manipulate, and, at the end of the day, voters are the ones actually electing these folks into power. However, the current two-party-system has done a very effective job of eliminating any kind of meaningful choice for voters in most places. (Not saying there are not differences between candidates/parties, but the gap between my policy positions and the positions of either of the candidate is greater than the gap between the policy positions of the two candidates....)

breuleux 3y ago
That's not exactly what I want to say. What I am saying is that voters do not know what they are doing. At a glance that might suggest that they are the problem, but only if you think "knowing what they are doing" is a low bar that voters fail to clear. I disagree. The bar is very high. And that's the real problem. Look, choosing a party requires you to figure out which economic policies best spur economic growth, which ones might make the climate crisis worse, what the long term consequences of increased immigration might be, and so on, and so forth. On your time. Through the distorting lens of media. Of course the average voter can't make heads or tails of this stuff. It's not their fault. Even if they could, they wouldn't have time because they work all day. So the best strategy the voter has is not to understand the issues, but to delegate their choice to someone they trust who ostensibly knows the issues. That's media, scientists, influencers, church leaders, etc. Regardless of the voting system, the public opinion will be modulated by the landscape of influencers they trust. If that landscape is broken, the votes will go in the wrong direction regardless of how many choices there are, I'm afraid.