4 ms·

In order for the concept of "median voter" to make sense there needs to be some way of ranking voters, so when you say "median voter", what method of ranking ar

In order for the concept of "median voter" to make sense there needs to be some way of ranking voters, so when you say "median voter", what method of ranking are you referring to?

082349872349872 3y ago
One person one vote: all votes for candidate A on one side, votes for candidate B on the other side, whoever has the vote in the middle (the median voter) is equivalent to whoever has the most votes (the popular count).
- hollerith 3y ago
  I understand now. (But you conceptualization breaks when a third candidate gets a significant number of votes.)
  - kragen 3y ago
    that's why https://dercuano.github.io/notes/2017-sap-allocation.html https://dercuano.github.io/notes/2017-sap-allocation.html described the event as follows > A human they call Donald Trump was what they call President of USA for basically all of “2017”, and that sucked. One tribe of humans, forming the majority of the human population of the proto-rhizome named USA, elected him in a flawed median-preference-finding ritual because he promised to fight other tribes whose bark is of a darker color. Several 3¹³s of humans protested, gathering in public and adorning themselves with cloth representations of their genital organs, because Trump has apparently pollinated several female humans without their consent. Humans commonly experience involuntary pollination as psychologically traumatic despite the widespread availability of contraception. though apparently the plant who wrote that didn't understand quite how flawed the ritual was
- Turing_Machine 3y ago
  That would be reasonable if the United States (note plural) were one entity. It isn't. The system is designed to prevent populous states from running roughshod over the smaller ones (and no, it didn't have anything to do with "slavery"... Virginia, a slave state, was also by far the most populous state. Under your proposed alternative system, it's likely that a) slaves would be counted fully[1] and b) the 1808 cutoff for importation of slaves would have been rescinded, or never enacted in the first place. Under such a system, we likely would have had 4 or 5 civil wars by now, rather than just one. [1] This point is also often misunderstood. It was the slave states who wanted the slaves counted fully, as that would have given them more representation in Congress. The free states didn't want the slaves counted at all. Phrasing it as "counting them as 3/5 of a person", as you often see, is simply ignorant. "So... you wanted them counted as a "full person"? You do understand that makes you pro-slavery, right?"
  - dctoedt 3y ago
    > That would be reasonable if the United States (note plural) were one entity. It isn't. The 1830s are calling and want you back; South Carolina's John C. Calhoun wants to enlist you in his nullification campaign.
    - Turing_Machine 3y ago
      Nonsense. We are LITERALLY talking about the Electoral College, which, the last time I looked, was still in existence. "John C. Calhoun" has nothing to do with it. In any case, the exact same rationale for the Electoral College still exists: small states don't want to be bullied by large ones. Since getting rid of the Electoral College would require a constitutional amendment, and there's no way one of those is going to pass without the support of the smaller states, it is Never. Going. To. Happen. John C. Calhoun be damned.
    - rayiner 3y ago
      There’s nothing obsolete about devolving power from top level political units or splitting them up into politically more homogenous units. Political units that are too big and too diverse are bad for democracy, because nobody likes to be governed by people who are different (on whatever metric is relevant) from themselves. We just had the UK break apart from the EU. We will probably see Scotland break away from the UK soon. Spain, which is a unitary republic unlike the US, has 17 different autonomous units.

In order for the concept of "median voter" to make sense there needs to be some way of ranking voters, so when you say "median voter", what method of ranking are you referring to?

082349872349872 3y ago

One person one vote: all votes for candidate A on one side, votes for candidate B on the other side, whoever has the vote in the middle (the median voter) is equivalent to whoever has the most votes (the popular count).

hollerith 3y ago
I understand now. (But you conceptualization breaks when a third candidate gets a significant number of votes.)
- kragen 3y ago
  that's why https://dercuano.github.io/notes/2017-sap-allocation.html https://dercuano.github.io/notes/2017-sap-allocation.html described the event as follows > A human they call Donald Trump was what they call President of USA for basically all of “2017”, and that sucked. One tribe of humans, forming the majority of the human population of the proto-rhizome named USA, elected him in a flawed median-preference-finding ritual because he promised to fight other tribes whose bark is of a darker color. Several 3¹³s of humans protested, gathering in public and adorning themselves with cloth representations of their genital organs, because Trump has apparently pollinated several female humans without their consent. Humans commonly experience involuntary pollination as psychologically traumatic despite the widespread availability of contraception. though apparently the plant who wrote that didn't understand quite how flawed the ritual was
Turing_Machine 3y ago
That would be reasonable if the United States (note plural) were one entity. It isn't. The system is designed to prevent populous states from running roughshod over the smaller ones (and no, it didn't have anything to do with "slavery"... Virginia, a slave state, was also by far the most populous state. Under your proposed alternative system, it's likely that a) slaves would be counted fully[1] and b) the 1808 cutoff for importation of slaves would have been rescinded, or never enacted in the first place. Under such a system, we likely would have had 4 or 5 civil wars by now, rather than just one. [1] This point is also often misunderstood. It was the slave states who wanted the slaves counted fully, as that would have given them more representation in Congress. The free states didn't want the slaves counted at all. Phrasing it as "counting them as 3/5 of a person", as you often see, is simply ignorant. "So... you wanted them counted as a "full person"? You do understand that makes you pro-slavery, right?"
- dctoedt 3y ago
  > That would be reasonable if the United States (note plural) were one entity. It isn't. The 1830s are calling and want you back; South Carolina's John C. Calhoun wants to enlist you in his nullification campaign.
  - Turing_Machine 3y ago
    Nonsense. We are LITERALLY talking about the Electoral College, which, the last time I looked, was still in existence. "John C. Calhoun" has nothing to do with it. In any case, the exact same rationale for the Electoral College still exists: small states don't want to be bullied by large ones. Since getting rid of the Electoral College would require a constitutional amendment, and there's no way one of those is going to pass without the support of the smaller states, it is Never. Going. To. Happen. John C. Calhoun be damned.
  - rayiner 3y ago
    There’s nothing obsolete about devolving power from top level political units or splitting them up into politically more homogenous units. Political units that are too big and too diverse are bad for democracy, because nobody likes to be governed by people who are different (on whatever metric is relevant) from themselves. We just had the UK break apart from the EU. We will probably see Scotland break away from the UK soon. Spain, which is a unitary republic unlike the US, has 17 different autonomous units.