Re: [PLUG] Excellent talk on preferential voting at PLUG North Tue 12/11

On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 1:32 PM Rich Freeman via plug <plug@lists.phillylinux.org> wrote:

On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 11:02 AM Fred Stluka via plug
<plug@lists.phillylinux.org> wrote:
>
> Since IRV is not perfect, there are various other techniques that
> can be used to count the ballots, discard weaker candidates, and
> choose a single winner. Unfortunately, none of them is perfect.
> There are pros/cons to each of them. But they pretty much ALL
> work better than our current "Plurality" system.
>

I think the other big advantage of these systems is getting more
options on the general election ballot. Most of these systems have
the potential to make primaries obsolete. Maybe they might still be
used to secure party backing for a general election, but voters would
have far more options in the general.

Today's system often leads to unpopular options in the general. Let's
take healthcare. Maybe in the 2020 election we could end up with one
candidate who wants to ban private insurance, and another candidate
who wants to dismantle the ACA. There are probably a lot of voters
would would prefer a candidate who maybe charts a course between these
positions. Of course after they are elected most politicians end up
having to compromise anyway, but this just results in candidates
making promises they know they will never deliver, and disappointment
in the voters when this is what happens.

Most of the ranked voting systems tend to lead to the election of
"everybody's 2nd-3rd choice." The candidates making bold proposals
might shape the debate but the ones who get picked in methods like
Condorcet and so on tend to be ones that everybody can live with.
While these systems might not always agree on the same winner they'll
generally differ only as to which shade of gray ends up in office, and
any of the likely outcomes tend to be somebody that everybody can live
with.

I think that this is something largely missing in US politics. It is
way too much about rallying support using wedge issues, and demonizing
the other side so as to push your side over the coveted 51% threshold.
When everything is winner-takes-all everybody will stoop to any
measure to squeeze out that last 1% of support. After it is over
everybody ends up being completely divided.

I think a potential criticism of these methods is that it is going to
lead to career politicians who generally maintain the status quo and
don't embrace change. The government would slowly bend to the will of
the people, but reform would be slow to be enacted when it is needed.
On the other hand, there would also be more stability, without some
modern problems like one party enacting multi-billion-dollar changes
and the next party just ripping the rug out of it. Every president
will be a Bush or a Biden and so on. That said, activists would
actually get to vote for third parties without throwing away their
votes, which may give them more of a voice than they have today.

I definitely enjoyed some of the discussion, and learned quite a bit
about some of the consistency problems that even the better systems
have. One thing I'm curious about is how these systems tend to fail
under real-world conditions. Not that our current system ever
fails...

--
Rich
___________________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group -- http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion -- http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug