5 ms·

>It turns out that when elections are fought on the basis of identity (race, religion) etc corruption is actually considered a benefit! This is because the loya

>It turns out that when elections are fought on the basis of identity (race, religion) etc corruption is actually considered a benefit! This is because the loyalists interpret this as "we" are winning and "they" are losing. So how could one design a political system so this behavior doesn't emerge / is not incentivized?

Atreiden 1y ago
Get rid of FPTP and the Electoral College that enables a two-party stranglehold. If a vote for a third party wasn't a wasted vote, we could see nuanced parties and politicians emerge that don't have to tow a party line.
- secos 1y ago
  Ranked Choice Voting goes a long way to solving this as well.
  - t_mann 1y ago
    Does it? Could you explain which mechanism you suggest using? Because the main results from social choice theory about ranked choice voting that come to mind seem to be all about impossibility of fair elections (eg Arrow) or even paradoxical situations such as cyclic preferences (eg Condorcet).
    - pornel 1y ago
      These kinds of perfectionism complaints keep the status quo of FPTP, which is the worst of them all.
    - cardiffspaceman 1y ago
      Since none of the proposed replacements can be perfect according to the theory, let’s just stick with the worst one. Big fat /s
- trueismywork 1y ago
  You need to educate the people and convince them on how it works. Easily a 30 year project in places like India.
  - FireBeyond 1y ago
    Easily a 30 year project in the US, too.
    - 0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago
      Yep. Sadly, Ranked Choice is not doing too well at the ballot in the US. https://ballotpedia.org/Results_for_ranked-choice_voting_(RCV)_and_electoral_system_ballot_measures,_2024 https://ballotpedia.org/Results_for_ranked-choice_voting_(RC...
- 0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago
  Strengthening third parties can also increase extremism though. Consider parties such as Reform in the UK or AfD in Germany. I think what you want is electoral rules which tend to select for consensus-makers. Approval voting would be an example.
  - solumunus 1y ago
    FPTP is what makes Reform so dangerous though. They have a real chance of having a lot of power. In a proportional representation system where parties have to share power in coalitions these extreme parties actually have to be involved in government, at which point they’re exposed as completely incompetent. See the Netherlands right now for example. I would rather have these extreme positions represented, because they will be represented poorly. It takes wind out of the populist sails, where they can no longer simply promise everything until they’re in power and completely destroy the country.
    - 0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago
      I think FPTP ends up working out a lot different in the parliamentary context. The US only has 2 parties in Congress, despite FPTP. In terms of strength of 3rd parties, I'd say they are generally quite weak in the US system, somewhat stronger in a proportional representation parliamentary system, and potentially overpowered in a FPTP parliament like in the UK. Historically I believe the 2-party system in the US was pretty good at tamping down on extremism, but recently the 2 major parties have acquired too many extremists.
      - zimpenfish 1y ago
        > the 2 major parties have acquired too many extremists. You're blaming both parties for where the US is now?
        0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago
        Yep, see here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44216278 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44216278
unicornporn 1y ago
How about not creating a precarious underclass with lack of (higher) education that is ready to vote for whatever solution promising to take down the system that made them so desperate for radical change?
- CamperBob2 1y ago
  I don't really buy the education argument. How do you "educate" somebody who lived through the first Trump administration and voted for more of the same? Let's get specific: what exactly did they miss in school that would have driven them towards a different decision? At some point it's necessary to confront the uncomfortable truth: stupid people are easy for smart, ill-intentioned people to herd, which gives the latter a leg up in any democratic election. This bug in democracy was there in the beginning. But it's only now, 2500 years later, that it can be exploited effectively enough to invalidate the whole concept.
  - Propelloni 1y ago
    They missed that liberty and freedom is not a god-given right, but hard-earned privilege. They missed that liberty is not a personal property but a shared practice of pluralism. They missed that liberty is not absolute, but requires compromise and limitations so that we all can be free. To be fair, those are not things that are taught in school. If they come up at all it is in some historical context, a battle someone else fought--and won. There is no mention that maintaining a liberal democracy requires effort and vigilance. Modern, ie. post-WW2, "fighting democracies" have built-in safeguards to oppose internal enemies of democracy, but if they are effective remains to be seen. The USA mostly does not even have such mechanisms and it shows.
    - 0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago
      >Modern, ie. post-WW2, "fighting democracies" have built-in safeguards to oppose internal enemies of democracy, but if they are effective remains to be seen. Eh, "internal enemies of democracy" is way too vague. E.g. Trump supporters claim that "unelected bureaucrats" in the "deep state" are enemies of democracy. Anyone can call anyone an "enemy of democracy".
avaika 1y ago
In no way this is a good example of such a system, but I still find Bosnia and Herzegovina political system absolutely hilarious. After Dayton peace agreement the literally put ethnicity requirement for presidents to Constitution as a hard rule. One Bosnian, one Serb and one Croatian. And yes, the country is ran by 3 presidents at the same time. So there is no longer a competition whether the main guy in the country will be theirs or ours. There were two guys: a Roma and a Jew in BiH who also wanted to take the president office. However according to Constitution they didn't have a chance. So they went to EU Human Rights Court to look for a justice. The court told the country it's kinda racist to have a rule like that and they should change it. This was like 15 years ago. Guess whether the rule has changed since then. (Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina for more details). PS. If you find 3 presidents not fascinating enough, then google for High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina.
- roryirvine 1y ago
  Northern Ireland has a similar system, with an executive built on a forced coalition. The executive is led by a First Minister and Deputy First Minister (despite the difference in title, they have exactly equal powers), who are selected from the largest party representing each of the two main communities. Major decisions require cross-community support - at least 50% of all those voting AND 50% of the representatives of each of the two communities, OR 60% of all those voting AND 40% of the representatives of each of the two communities. On paper, it seems slightly absurd... but in practice, it's a reasonable way to deal with deeply divided societies.
  - soulofmischief 1y ago
    I don't know... Never go to sea with two chronometers; take one or three. Two guys with equal power is a recipe for inaction in critical moments.
    - tdeck 1y ago
      In practice Northern Ireland is subordinate to Westminster in most "critical moments".
intended 1y ago
This has not emerged due to the political system, this has emerged due to the issues in the information economy. The core issue is that news cannot compete with entertainment, and the firms that appeared after Murdoch on the right, insulate themselves and their politicians from the need to be accurate. The cycle is essentially: 1) Fringe theory appears on the internet 2) Fringe theory is picked up by Notable Person (Someone who is able to come on Prime time Television) 3) Notable comes onto media network and repeats fringe theory 4) Reporting can now cover Fringe Theory as main stream This economy of ideas shares little with the processes on the center and the left. People who come up with counter arguments don’t end up getting amplified. This has demolished the exchange and debate of Ideas, and it has worked in all liberal democracies. Implacable Partisanship has been rewarded.

Atreiden 1y ago

Get rid of FPTP and the Electoral College that enables a two-party stranglehold. If a vote for a third party wasn't a wasted vote, we could see nuanced parties and politicians emerge that don't have to tow a party line.

secos 1y ago
Ranked Choice Voting goes a long way to solving this as well.
- t_mann 1y ago
  Does it? Could you explain which mechanism you suggest using? Because the main results from social choice theory about ranked choice voting that come to mind seem to be all about impossibility of fair elections (eg Arrow) or even paradoxical situations such as cyclic preferences (eg Condorcet).
  - pornel 1y ago
    These kinds of perfectionism complaints keep the status quo of FPTP, which is the worst of them all.
  - cardiffspaceman 1y ago
    Since none of the proposed replacements can be perfect according to the theory, let’s just stick with the worst one. Big fat /s
trueismywork 1y ago
You need to educate the people and convince them on how it works. Easily a 30 year project in places like India.
- FireBeyond 1y ago
  Easily a 30 year project in the US, too.
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago
    Yep. Sadly, Ranked Choice is not doing too well at the ballot in the US. https://ballotpedia.org/Results_for_ranked-choice_voting_(RCV)_and_electoral_system_ballot_measures,_2024 https://ballotpedia.org/Results_for_ranked-choice_voting_(RC...
0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago
Strengthening third parties can also increase extremism though. Consider parties such as Reform in the UK or AfD in Germany. I think what you want is electoral rules which tend to select for consensus-makers. Approval voting would be an example.
- solumunus 1y ago
  FPTP is what makes Reform so dangerous though. They have a real chance of having a lot of power. In a proportional representation system where parties have to share power in coalitions these extreme parties actually have to be involved in government, at which point they’re exposed as completely incompetent. See the Netherlands right now for example. I would rather have these extreme positions represented, because they will be represented poorly. It takes wind out of the populist sails, where they can no longer simply promise everything until they’re in power and completely destroy the country.
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago
    I think FPTP ends up working out a lot different in the parliamentary context. The US only has 2 parties in Congress, despite FPTP. In terms of strength of 3rd parties, I'd say they are generally quite weak in the US system, somewhat stronger in a proportional representation parliamentary system, and potentially overpowered in a FPTP parliament like in the UK. Historically I believe the 2-party system in the US was pretty good at tamping down on extremism, but recently the 2 major parties have acquired too many extremists.
    - zimpenfish 1y ago
      > the 2 major parties have acquired too many extremists. You're blaming both parties for where the US is now?
      - 0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago
        Yep, see here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44216278 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44216278

unicornporn 1y ago

How about not creating a precarious underclass with lack of (higher) education that is ready to vote for whatever solution promising to take down the system that made them so desperate for radical change?

CamperBob2 1y ago
I don't really buy the education argument. How do you "educate" somebody who lived through the first Trump administration and voted for more of the same? Let's get specific: what exactly did they miss in school that would have driven them towards a different decision? At some point it's necessary to confront the uncomfortable truth: stupid people are easy for smart, ill-intentioned people to herd, which gives the latter a leg up in any democratic election. This bug in democracy was there in the beginning. But it's only now, 2500 years later, that it can be exploited effectively enough to invalidate the whole concept.
- Propelloni 1y ago
  They missed that liberty and freedom is not a god-given right, but hard-earned privilege. They missed that liberty is not a personal property but a shared practice of pluralism. They missed that liberty is not absolute, but requires compromise and limitations so that we all can be free. To be fair, those are not things that are taught in school. If they come up at all it is in some historical context, a battle someone else fought--and won. There is no mention that maintaining a liberal democracy requires effort and vigilance. Modern, ie. post-WW2, "fighting democracies" have built-in safeguards to oppose internal enemies of democracy, but if they are effective remains to be seen. The USA mostly does not even have such mechanisms and it shows.
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago
    >Modern, ie. post-WW2, "fighting democracies" have built-in safeguards to oppose internal enemies of democracy, but if they are effective remains to be seen. Eh, "internal enemies of democracy" is way too vague. E.g. Trump supporters claim that "unelected bureaucrats" in the "deep state" are enemies of democracy. Anyone can call anyone an "enemy of democracy".

avaika 1y ago

In no way this is a good example of such a system, but I still find Bosnia and Herzegovina political system absolutely hilarious. After Dayton peace agreement the literally put ethnicity requirement for presidents to Constitution as a hard rule. One Bosnian, one Serb and one Croatian. And yes, the country is ran by 3 presidents at the same time. So there is no longer a competition whether the main guy in the country will be theirs or ours. There were two guys: a Roma and a Jew in BiH who also wanted to take the president office. However according to Constitution they didn't have a chance. So they went to EU Human Rights Court to look for a justice. The court told the country it's kinda racist to have a rule like that and they should change it. This was like 15 years ago. Guess whether the rule has changed since then. (Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina for more details). PS. If you find 3 presidents not fascinating enough, then google for High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina.

roryirvine 1y ago
Northern Ireland has a similar system, with an executive built on a forced coalition. The executive is led by a First Minister and Deputy First Minister (despite the difference in title, they have exactly equal powers), who are selected from the largest party representing each of the two main communities. Major decisions require cross-community support - at least 50% of all those voting AND 50% of the representatives of each of the two communities, OR 60% of all those voting AND 40% of the representatives of each of the two communities. On paper, it seems slightly absurd... but in practice, it's a reasonable way to deal with deeply divided societies.
- soulofmischief 1y ago
  I don't know... Never go to sea with two chronometers; take one or three. Two guys with equal power is a recipe for inaction in critical moments.
  - tdeck 1y ago
    In practice Northern Ireland is subordinate to Westminster in most "critical moments".

intended 1y ago

This has not emerged due to the political system, this has emerged due to the issues in the information economy. The core issue is that news cannot compete with entertainment, and the firms that appeared after Murdoch on the right, insulate themselves and their politicians from the need to be accurate. The cycle is essentially: 1) Fringe theory appears on the internet 2) Fringe theory is picked up by Notable Person (Someone who is able to come on Prime time Television) 3) Notable comes onto media network and repeats fringe theory 4) Reporting can now cover Fringe Theory as main stream This economy of ideas shares little with the processes on the center and the left. People who come up with counter arguments don’t end up getting amplified. This has demolished the exchange and debate of Ideas, and it has worked in all liberal democracies. Implacable Partisanship has been rewarded.