6 ms·
The US problem is actually a perfect storm formed by the collision of at least two smaller storms that each forms its own problems. Combined together they self-
by drostie 14y ago
The US problem is actually a perfect storm formed by the collision of at least two smaller storms that each forms its own problems. Combined together they self-reinforce and make the system worse.
The first storm is what Lessig mentioned: simply getting the money or in-party approval to be on the ballot and run the necessary ads. If your first promises have to be directed towards any group of "Lesters", e.g. the exceedingly wealthy, then you're starting off on a bad foot.
The second storm is that the Framers of the Constitution set up our system to vote for individual politicians in individual seats by first-past-the-post voting. This has been elegantly covered by C.G.P. Grey in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo . The problem here is that we have a two-party system in the first place, because that is a fixed point of the voting process and the system converges to its fixed point over iterated voting.
Just to see why this is one of The Big Problems, a fillibuster rule would actually make sense if we had, say, 4-5 parties occupying the Senate. It would say that you need a 60% majority if some of the minority parties were so strongly opposed to the idea they'd filibuster it; in effect you can force the status quo with only a 40% vote, which allows a sort of "minority coalition" to come together on really hot-topic matters. This really gives a great deal more voice to minority parties than is seen in normal coalition governments.
- JoshTriplett 14y ago> The second storm is that the Framers of the Constitution set up our system to vote for individual politicians in individual seats by first-past-the-post voting. > The problem here is that we have a two-party system in the first place, because that is a fixed point of the voting process and the system converges to its fixed point over iterated voting. For more details on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law "plurality rule elections structured within single-member districts tends to favor a two-party system" We could fix so many problems with a sane voting system, but it remains one of the most difficult things to change. Between the current system having elected everyone in a position to change it, the public perception of "one person one vote" as the most fair rather than one of the worst systems in common use, and the most popular alternative system being one of the only worse ones, I don't know if we'll ever manage to move to a better system on any large scale.
- dllthomas 14y ago> the most popular alternative system being one of the only worse ones Which is this?
- JoshTriplett 14y agoInstant runoff voting. Ask everyone for a ranked list of preferences, then completely ignore those preferences and only look at everyone's top choice unless their top choice has been eliminated. Numerous inherent problems, notably non-monotonicity, where voting a candidate higher can cause them to lose. The biggest practical problem with IRV: it encourages people to vote for their preferred third-party or independent candidate first followed by their lesser-of-two-evils choice (common examples using US political parties: Green>Democrat>Republican or Libertarian>Republican>Democrat), but IRV then ignores the preference for the second choice over the third, which means voting for a third-party candidate still risks "throwing your vote away" and having your greater-of-two-evils win. So, IRV not only breaks fundamental properties that any sane voting system should have, it still doesn't actually address the single biggest problem we have with voting systems, and worse yet it pretends that it does. I'd advocate approval voting if you need a system that's simple to use with existing infrastructure and doesn't require much explanation, or Condorcet if you have no infrastructural or political concerns blocking you from choosing the best option.
- cpeterso 14y agoI like the simplicity of Approval Voting, but the optimal voting strategy is still to vote for only one candidate.
- dllthomas 14y agoThat's not been my understanding. Citation?
- cpeterso 14y agoThe problem is that if your candidate preference is A > B >> C and you vote for A and B (and not C), you might cause B to win, even though you preferred A. The tactic for just voting for candidate A is called "bullet voting", according to [1]. An interesting analysis [2] of the 2007 French presidential election claims that Approval Voting was the voting system that was second least vulnerable to strategic voters (behind the authors' own voting system, of course :) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting#Strategic_voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting#Strategic_voti... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_voting#Approval_voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_voting#Approval_votin...
- moultano 14y agoIf you want to fix the second storm, the thing to push on is PL 90-196, which prohibits states from anything other than single member districts for congressional elections, and was passed in 1967 http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=1724 http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=1724 If that gets repealed then we can start working state by state to switch to some form of proportional representation.
- khuey 14y agoWow, I didn't know there was a federal law about this. Do you know if the constitutionality of PL 90-196 has ever been challenged? I'm surprised that the federal government is allowed to tell the states how to allocate their representatives.
- jbooth 14y agoI think the filibuster would be fine if politicians actually had to hold the floor, Mr. Smith goes to washington style. These guys are lazy, entitled and have to make a lot of fundraising calls -- being on the floor that long would actually hurt their bankroll. As it is, they just file a procedural motion and bang, nothing gets done.