Brexit Paradox?


A British poll has found a Condorcet paradox among 3 different Brexit proposals: Remain, May’s Deal, and No Deal.

However, the poll featured in the article is only a single poll taken a while ago, and the pairwise victory of no deal over remain was very close and probably in the margin of error. If you look at post-referendum polling, Remain is often preferred by a majority of voters when compared to leave. So I doubt the UK is or was ever in a Brexit Condorcet paradox. However it is still interesting that the sample of people selected for that poll created such a paradox.


Is it just me, or is every FPTP country that I can think of embroiled in some strange political crisis that could be averted with better voting systems?

1 Like

Its just you. France and Germany are having similar issues and they dont have SMP.

It is all western nations. It is a result of the elite changing from an ideology based on the enlightement to that of the Frankfurt school.


‘Voting’ in any kind of extant election system had zero effect on the fulfillment of the goals of the security/financial Mandarins.


Could you explain this claim in more detail?


I could but it would be a bit of a book. There are books on this. Or youtube videos if you prefer.

There are several concepts here and I am not sure what parts you are missing. Ill just say it again but in more words and you can ask questions. I am a physicist so maybe somebody who has a better understanding can correct some of my errors. There is also a large chance that somebody who reads this is from the far left so maybe they can give their perspective. I’ll give mine as a liberal.

So the western world basically got its ideology in the enlightenment; this can be broadly defined as being a liberal democracy. Befor this it was mercantile and fairly theocratic. Just prior to the world wars there were a few Hegelian based pushes to transform away from some of these aspects. Left Hegelianism through Marx challenged capitalism and lead to communism. Right Hegelianism challenged individualism and led to fascism and nation socialism. Both of these movements were socialist and collectivist but are generally viewed as being on the opposite ends of the spectrum due to their views on hierarchical structures. In any case, both fascism and communism were favoured by the intelligentsia. Fascism and communism have both since been put to the test a number of times and have done a lot more killing of citizens than helping of people.

After the wars some intellectuals from the Frankfurt School came to America. Their thinking combined with the “Critical theory” and postmoderninsm of Derrida and Foucault. The resulting ideology is sometimes called Postmodern Neomarxism but you will know it as the ideology of social justice and political correctness.

Postmodern Neomarxist critical approaches gained influence in the 1980s and 1990s but lost the debate in the public sphere because many common people had a good grasp of the enlightenment theories, particularly those of John Stuart Mill. The people who were Postmodern Neomarxist believers were not persuaded and since many of them were academics they ended up teaching in university. They took up the fields of gender studies, feminism, education, sociology, journalism ect After a generation of teaching this in university instead of liberalism there was enough people in the general public who accepted this ideology for it to start to have power. In about 2015 it reached critical mass. The liberals who had spent the early 2000s making fun of the religious right on the internet suddenly realized that they were no longer the left and the far left no longer just threatened the world with socialism. This changed the political dynamic from being between the Liberals and Conservatives. The Liberals had to switch sides and join the conservatives since they at least had roots in the enlightenment. This shift is going to take a while before things settle.

Does that make sense?

This is a big topic so you are going to need to research it yourself. This is a good article


When I looked up the Frankfurt school, I read that it was sympathetic to Marxism, and I was somewhat skeptical of the idea that Marxism could become the dominant school of thought among the elites when it opposes the existence of an elite, or when the western world is still capitalist. I asked for an explanation to try to find out how this could be.

Part of what I missed, I think, is that there are different kinds of elites; a university department chair, a cabinet member, and a CEO are all elite in different domains. One domain’s elites could oppose those of another domain.

Looking at your longer explanation: doesn’t Postmodernism reject Marxism for trying to explain history through one narrative? How can one be a Postmodern Neomarxist?


Exactly Marxism was about breaking down the hierarchy of class and wealth. The elites were the aristocracy not the intellectuals. If you read some Thomas Sowell he talks about how a defining feature of the left is to have a sort of vision of utopia but the right is more about a pragmatic constrained vision. This constrained vision was referred to as the tragic vision by Steven Pinker. Anyway, this hatred of the elites led to the killing fields of Cambodia, the purge of the kulaks and many other atrocities.

Neomarxism takes this idea further and postulates that all hierarchies are corrupt and that merit does not exist. This is one of the touch-points with post-modernism because it postulates that all differences are socially constructed. I am sure you can see how these fit together. Another touch point is that Foucault said everything was about power and this fits with how all the groups in neomarxism are in an illegitimate and unending fight for power. This is where identity politics comes from. I think that one other part you might be missing is that a belief structure does not need to be internally consistent or really even make sense. It just needs people to believe it.

I see you are well into this already. Hopefully you see why this change in ideological underpinning would cause some political turmoil. Better voting systems woudl help but likely not enough to prevent it.


The one I found is:

Remain > May Deal > No Deal > Remain


Here is an article talking about this change. They quantify it a little differently but tie the effect to elections. Specifically they posit that the narrative is driven by the two principle components of the ideology space. This is soumething I have always doubted when people make 2D plots like these. The two components changing will cause the previous alliances to break independent of if 2 is adequate to describe most debates.