What I mean is that democracy is a function where the input is the electorate’s opinions, however, the output of that function is not the composition of the legislative body. The true output of the system are the laws that are passed by that legislative body. The composition of the legislative body is just a really important in-between variable in the function that is democracy. Modifying how proportional/centrist/majoritarian/utilitarian that legislative body is can improve the quality of the legislation passed by that democracy, but the composition of the legislative body itself shouldn’t be the end goal. The end goal should be to improve a measure of the overall satisfaction the electorate has with the legislation that is passed, whether that measure be voter satisfaction effeciancy or proportional satisfaction effeciancy or some other ideologically agnostic (non-partison) measure of the quality of the legislation that is passed.
Your welfare is not affected by the nearest candidate. It is affected by the combined behavior of ALL candidates.
It seems the empirical evidence is actually far from conclusive here, and that’s comparing to mere (horrible) Plurality Voting.
Bryce, this is offensive. You’re free to state your case as to why Approval Voting is preferable to Score Voting or anything else along those lines. But I haven’t made any argument that’s comparable to saying “a new untested thing is totally safe because I saw it work once”. If anything, this is similar to your argument that PR is bad because “it elected Hitler once”.
Many people would say that the worst case with Score Voting is Approval Voting. Or, as has happened with Approval in real life, it gets repealed. You also have a theory about tactical nomination but don’t have any evidence for it being a bigger issue with Score than Approval.
The whole point about worst case scenarios is, they are sort of “black swans”, that tend to defy your reasonable expectations.
Approval gets repealed in systems that are bad for approval. A tiny highly homogenous group where 90% of people personally know the candidates doesn’t need to maximize consensus because they already have it.
It’s quite possible for schools polarization might actually be a good thing so FPtP voting could be great for picking student officers or association presidents. But for electing compulsory Government reps consensus is the most important thing.
I love proportional representation for ordering pizza toppings it’s great but it’s terrible for picking Representatives for Government. Coalitions of people trading graft for special interest is not great. (Read the jungle if you don’t know what graft is)
I can understand that perspective, but there are other effects of representative democracy besides making laws, such as making people feel that their ideas are represented in government so they don’t need to stage violent coups to have their ideas heard, or flood the media with propaganda to try to get slight shifts in popular opinion (to cause large shifts in power), etc. Majoritarian democracy leads to increasing political polarization, etc.
Anyway, “Democracy’s goal is to map ideas to laws” doesn’t imply which type of representation (or voting system used by those representatives) is best for accomplishing that goal. Why do you think a bunch of representatives of the average voter would be better at making laws than a bunch of representatives of different types of voters?
(I am wholeheartedly in favor of consensus/utilitarian voting systems for single-winner elections, by the way.)
Because a group of smart people who represent everyone will represent everyone. A person who represents a small group of people will sell their vote for those people.
Special interests for everyone =/= general welfare for everyone.
What makes them smarter?
They will all be good representatives of the average voter, not of “everyone”.
What does “sell their vote” mean?
I don’t know what this means.
Don’t worry about it. You’re Fringe so you don’t matter in democracy.
Dude, don’t be a dick.
Also, the fact that you can’t answer simple questions doesn’t reflect well on you.
It’s just a waste of time you’re not interested in democracy. We have a saying casting pearl before swine. If you disregard all evidence that small winning coalition sizes create perverse incentives for Representatives then you’re post factual. Why bother trying to convince you when you’re set on injuring all evidence that contradicts your world view.
One advantage of the Reddit format over this forum is that you can downvote comments that contribute nothing to the discussion.
Guy wants to elect Nazis because “every voice should be heard” but whole heartedly believes a mob should be empowered to silence minority voices on a forum.
People make me laugh.
I 100% agree with this.
Bryce, if this is your way of interacting with people who disagree with you, then one could argue that you don’t matter to democratic reform.
How about instead assuming the best intentions, and simply stating where you think people are wrong? At least then you’ll win over some of the people some of the time. In a field this complex, a lot of us are going to be wrong a lot of the time. That’s okay.
Sorry that I’m not nicer to Nazi sympathizers my bad. Please go on convince me why lunatics will improve democracy. I’m 100% listening to your persuasive argument. Even the biggest PR advocates admit minimum thresholds are good single member districts are the highest thresholds which elect the strongest candidates when people are allowed to with a voting method that liberates them from the partisan control of primaries.