5 ms·

IMO the real problem is America's Electoral system. Because there is no rank voting, the choices are the warmongering party, the slightly-less-warmongering part

by rob05c 13y ago

IMO the real problem is America's Electoral system. Because there is no rank voting, the choices are the warmongering party, the slightly-less-warmongering party, or wasting your vote. Even if the President had more power than it does now, it couldn't get away with these things if citizens had the ability to relevantly vote for another person/party. They would simply vote for whoever else was closest to their beliefs but not e.g. killing Americans without due process.

Osiris 13y ago
Every voting system has its pros and cons. The nature of the voting system influences how candidates campaign but it's not the only mechanism that affects how government operates. It's a far to simplistic suggestion to say that "rank voting" would solve the problem. For that matter, why not any of the other dozen different types of voting systems? In short, the voting system is ingrained into the constitution and will not change in the foreseeable future.
- eru 13y ago
  Approval voting, for example. Rank voting is ripe for tactical voting, too.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    All voting systems are ripe for tactical voting; approval voting has the additional problem that ballots lack consistent meaning (a ranking, especially if it doesn't use forced preferences because it allows ties, has consistent meaning; "approval" vs. "disapproval" does not.) The problem with FPTP isn't that its ripe for tactical voting, its that it maximizes the difference in expressed preferences that are completely ignored by the voting system, maximizing the need to vote tactically in order to have a vote that isn't equivalent to abstention.
    - eru 13y ago
      How would you vote tactical in approval voting? (By tactical I mean, a vote that's not in accordance with your naive preferences.)
- rob05c 13y ago
  I wasn't really trying to suggest Rank Voting is the best system. Just that First Past the Post is the worst.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > It's a far to simplistic suggestion to say that "rank voting" would solve the problem. For that matter, why not any of the other dozen different types of voting systems? "Rank voting" is dozens of different voting systems; its essentially one of the major kinds of ballots -- FPTP-style vote-for-one ballots are used in two main voting systems (both often referred to as FPTP): plurality and majority-runoff; "rank voting" is used in many voting systems (IRV, Borda, Bucklin, Coombs, and pretty all the Condorcet methods); and there are a few voting systems (e.g., approval) that use different balloting mechanisms -- though most of them (including the FPTP style and the approval style ballots) are special constrained cases of rank voting ballots. > In short, the voting system is ingrained into the constitution and will not change in the foreseeable future. Actually, nothing in the Constitution requires either FPTP or single-winner constituencies (except, arguably, indirectly single-winner for Senate seats by way of the 1/3-per-two-years requirement.) Forms of FPTP -- both majority-runoff and plurality -- are adopted as matters of state election law, and single-member, geographically-defined legislative districts have been required since the civil rights era as a matter of federal statute as a response to states that used FPTP in multimember state-wide districts to effectively disenfranchise minorities (the same could be prevented while allowing multimember districts by using a system that produces proportional results -- including candidate-centered systems like STV as well as things like party-list proportional.) Very little of the US system of elections is set in the federal Constitution -- about the only part that is is the Electoral College for Presidential elections, and even there the matter of how electors are chosen is expressly left to the state legislatures.
  - rob05c 13y ago
    > matters of state election law Yep. There are actually a very few cities which use Instant-runoff voting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting_in_the_Un... Unfortunately, the people who have to pass laws for non-FPTP voting, are the people it would displace :(
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > Unfortunately, the people who have to pass laws for non-FPTP voting, are the people it would displace In many states, the only people needed to pass laws for non-FPTP voting are the people of the state -- at least for elections other than those for Presidential electors, because of initiative/referendum processes. Sure, under the Constitution, the rules for electing Presidential electors are left to state legislatures, but once you've changed the election rules for those offices, it should be easier to get people in them that aren't attached to FPTP.
jjjeffrey 13y ago
You address an important topic, but I think the problem at hand comes from a more fundamental dysfunction within the system. Once a president is elected into office, he/she is in charge for a minimum of four years, almost guaranteed. We can't simply rely on improving the chances of getting better people into office for at least two reasons: a lot of damage can be done in four years, and even then, most of the electoral branch isn't elected by The People and at least some of it is allowed to carry influence from one president to the next. I believe the most effective way to solve this problem will be to approach it from many angles with the ultimate purpose of restoring accountability to the executive branch. Improving voting methodology seems to be one of many possibly useful angles. Another might be to put weight on congress to begin scaling back the powers of the executive, such as by repealing the Patriot Act, defunding the NSA, etc. Another still might be to support legislation to protect the voices of other power structures and communication enablers, such as the internet, journalism in general, and organizations like Wikileaks. Sorry, I suppose this doesn't really bring any new insights to the table. Rather, my point is that there's this really big problem (an overly powerful branch of government) that's been brewing for a while, and it's going to take a lot more than a single fix the repair the whole machine. Of course, any single effort is better than no effort---I absolutely do not wish to discourage!
- rob05c 13y ago
  I don't think the Executive Branch is overly powerful. Hear me out! Anything significant has to be approved by both houses of Congress, and our Judicial system can overrule all three of them (Something that should never go away). Winston Churchill reputedly said "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing—after they’ve tried everything else." Our system of "checks and balances" makes it extremely slow and difficult to accomplish anything. Consider the current defunding issue. The Republican party has been taking the US to the brink of shutdown every few months—despite the American people voting against them in the last election. I'm not trying to bash the Republican party. My point is, I think the Executive branch actually has fairly limited power. I think it might actually be better for accomplishing things if it had a bit more. I think the real issue is legitimacy. One way to improve legitimacy is to elect the person Everyone Hates The Least, rather than who Everyone Loves The Most. Hence my ranked voting suggestion. I definitely agree we should approach it from many angles. But as you say: accountability. I think the real problem is Legitimacy, not Power.
rhizome 13y ago
Your description doesn't account for a President who doesn't care about getting re-elected. Imagine how much a unitary executive could get away with if they really wanted to. Electoral processes are certainly an issue, but it's distinct from the problem of separation of powers that has enabled Presidents to carve out immense impunities for themselves and their favored. As in nationalized health care, the US should be following those countries with higher standards of living and incorporate a Parliamentary system (or whatever) and eliminate much Presidential power, particularly where the military is concerned.
- gdwatson 13y ago
  I agree that the president is too powerful, but I don't see how a parliamentary system would fix it. From a separation-of-powers perspective, Commonwealth PMs look very much like elected dictators.
  - rhizome 13y ago
    "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good," and all that.
beedogs 13y ago
Rank voting didn't help in Australia where the media is compromised.

by rob05c 13y ago

Osiris 13y ago

Every voting system has its pros and cons. The nature of the voting system influences how candidates campaign but it's not the only mechanism that affects how government operates. It's a far to simplistic suggestion to say that "rank voting" would solve the problem. For that matter, why not any of the other dozen different types of voting systems? In short, the voting system is ingrained into the constitution and will not change in the foreseeable future.

eru 13y ago
Approval voting, for example. Rank voting is ripe for tactical voting, too.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  All voting systems are ripe for tactical voting; approval voting has the additional problem that ballots lack consistent meaning (a ranking, especially if it doesn't use forced preferences because it allows ties, has consistent meaning; "approval" vs. "disapproval" does not.) The problem with FPTP isn't that its ripe for tactical voting, its that it maximizes the difference in expressed preferences that are completely ignored by the voting system, maximizing the need to vote tactically in order to have a vote that isn't equivalent to abstention.
  - eru 13y ago
    How would you vote tactical in approval voting? (By tactical I mean, a vote that's not in accordance with your naive preferences.)
rob05c 13y ago
I wasn't really trying to suggest Rank Voting is the best system. Just that First Past the Post is the worst.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> It's a far to simplistic suggestion to say that "rank voting" would solve the problem. For that matter, why not any of the other dozen different types of voting systems? "Rank voting" is dozens of different voting systems; its essentially one of the major kinds of ballots -- FPTP-style vote-for-one ballots are used in two main voting systems (both often referred to as FPTP): plurality and majority-runoff; "rank voting" is used in many voting systems (IRV, Borda, Bucklin, Coombs, and pretty all the Condorcet methods); and there are a few voting systems (e.g., approval) that use different balloting mechanisms -- though most of them (including the FPTP style and the approval style ballots) are special constrained cases of rank voting ballots. > In short, the voting system is ingrained into the constitution and will not change in the foreseeable future. Actually, nothing in the Constitution requires either FPTP or single-winner constituencies (except, arguably, indirectly single-winner for Senate seats by way of the 1/3-per-two-years requirement.) Forms of FPTP -- both majority-runoff and plurality -- are adopted as matters of state election law, and single-member, geographically-defined legislative districts have been required since the civil rights era as a matter of federal statute as a response to states that used FPTP in multimember state-wide districts to effectively disenfranchise minorities (the same could be prevented while allowing multimember districts by using a system that produces proportional results -- including candidate-centered systems like STV as well as things like party-list proportional.) Very little of the US system of elections is set in the federal Constitution -- about the only part that is is the Electoral College for Presidential elections, and even there the matter of how electors are chosen is expressly left to the state legislatures.
- rob05c 13y ago
  > matters of state election law Yep. There are actually a very few cities which use Instant-runoff voting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting_in_the_Un... Unfortunately, the people who have to pass laws for non-FPTP voting, are the people it would displace :(
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Unfortunately, the people who have to pass laws for non-FPTP voting, are the people it would displace In many states, the only people needed to pass laws for non-FPTP voting are the people of the state -- at least for elections other than those for Presidential electors, because of initiative/referendum processes. Sure, under the Constitution, the rules for electing Presidential electors are left to state legislatures, but once you've changed the election rules for those offices, it should be easier to get people in them that aren't attached to FPTP.

jjjeffrey 13y ago

You address an important topic, but I think the problem at hand comes from a more fundamental dysfunction within the system. Once a president is elected into office, he/she is in charge for a minimum of four years, almost guaranteed. We can't simply rely on improving the chances of getting better people into office for at least two reasons: a lot of damage can be done in four years, and even then, most of the electoral branch isn't elected by The People and at least some of it is allowed to carry influence from one president to the next. I believe the most effective way to solve this problem will be to approach it from many angles with the ultimate purpose of restoring accountability to the executive branch. Improving voting methodology seems to be one of many possibly useful angles. Another might be to put weight on congress to begin scaling back the powers of the executive, such as by repealing the Patriot Act, defunding the NSA, etc. Another still might be to support legislation to protect the voices of other power structures and communication enablers, such as the internet, journalism in general, and organizations like Wikileaks. Sorry, I suppose this doesn't really bring any new insights to the table. Rather, my point is that there's this really big problem (an overly powerful branch of government) that's been brewing for a while, and it's going to take a lot more than a single fix the repair the whole machine. Of course, any single effort is better than no effort---I absolutely do not wish to discourage!

rob05c 13y ago
I don't think the Executive Branch is overly powerful. Hear me out! Anything significant has to be approved by both houses of Congress, and our Judicial system can overrule all three of them (Something that should never go away). Winston Churchill reputedly said "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing—after they’ve tried everything else." Our system of "checks and balances" makes it extremely slow and difficult to accomplish anything. Consider the current defunding issue. The Republican party has been taking the US to the brink of shutdown every few months—despite the American people voting against them in the last election. I'm not trying to bash the Republican party. My point is, I think the Executive branch actually has fairly limited power. I think it might actually be better for accomplishing things if it had a bit more. I think the real issue is legitimacy. One way to improve legitimacy is to elect the person Everyone Hates The Least, rather than who Everyone Loves The Most. Hence my ranked voting suggestion. I definitely agree we should approach it from many angles. But as you say: accountability. I think the real problem is Legitimacy, not Power.

rhizome 13y ago

Your description doesn't account for a President who doesn't care about getting re-elected. Imagine how much a unitary executive could get away with if they really wanted to. Electoral processes are certainly an issue, but it's distinct from the problem of separation of powers that has enabled Presidents to carve out immense impunities for themselves and their favored. As in nationalized health care, the US should be following those countries with higher standards of living and incorporate a Parliamentary system (or whatever) and eliminate much Presidential power, particularly where the military is concerned.

gdwatson 13y ago
I agree that the president is too powerful, but I don't see how a parliamentary system would fix it. From a separation-of-powers perspective, Commonwealth PMs look very much like elected dictators.
- rhizome 13y ago
  "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good," and all that.

beedogs 13y ago

Rank voting didn't help in Australia where the media is compromised.