Polarization
-
@rob said in Terms for Specific Voting Systems:
@jack-waugh said in Terms for Specific Voting Systems:
I suspect that many self-described "conservatives" would expect that any proposal to change the voting system comes from "liberals" looking for a way to win elections unfairly at the expense of "conservatives".
I think you are right, and therefore is something we should be especially careful about. We shouldn't ever appear to take sides here. Example: when I got frustrated with this community's slow progress (and seemingly conflicting agendas), I posted a bunch of photos of violence on January 6th, showing what happens when people are so polarized that many of them can't accept an outcome they don't like.
But to be clear: I am not blaming this on the right. (well, not here, in this forum) I am blaming it on choose-one voting. If someone looks at those 1/6 photos and sees a bunch of patriots fighting for a noble cause.... fine. They can also be angry at choose-one voting.
So it is a bit of a vicious cycle here. Broken voting causes polarization, polarization prevents us from fixing voting.
How might different proposed voting systems differ from one another in the direction and degree to which they might help mitigate and reverse, or exacerbate, the kind of polarization that lead to the Jan. 6 (2021?) break-in at the US Capitol?
What common ground might voting-systems advocates be able to use to convince people having the sorts of opinions and judgments and values that led them to do that break-in, to become also voting-system advocates?
Approval-ordered Llull (letter grades) [10], Score // Llull [9], Score, STAR, Approval, other rated Condorcet [8]; equal-ranked Condorcet [4]; strictly-ranked Condorcet [3]; everything else [0].
-
@jack-waugh said in Polarization:
How might different proposed voting systems differ from one another in the direction and degree to which they might help mitigate and reverse, or exacerbate, the kind of polarization that lead to the Jan. 6 (2021?) break-in at the US Capitol?
Anything that tends toward centrist / moderate candidates. It's really that simple.
Some do that better than others, but that is the gist. I have often said "median seeking systems" and have used the "perfect" example of people sharing an office voting on the temperature to set the thermostat, or members of a club voting on what the monthly dues are. Voters simply state their preferred number, and the system selects the median. Comes up with reasonable answer in the middle, gives everyone equal "pull," and pretty much eliminates arguing and ugliness.
When electing actual human candidates, Condorcet systems are very close to this, but the fact that they can result in a "tie" (i.e. no single Condorcet winner) is a well known downside. Approval approaches this, but strongly incentivizes voters to seek knowledge of who front runners are going to be. Score approaches this, but strongly incentivizes voters to seek knowledge of who front runners are going to be as well as to exaggerate their ratings. STAR approaches this as well, but imperfectly so, and may have an uphill battle due to requiring cardinal ballots and just a general lack of momentum. So no system is perfect in other ways, but many systems indeed favor the center.
Any one of them, if implemented widely, would address the problem. Even IRV, although it is slightly "weaker" than the other systems is addressing it, would make a huge difference if implemented widely.
convince people having the sorts of opinions and judgments and values that led them to do that break-in, to become also voting-system advocates?
The people who actually participated in a break in probably aren't the ones I'd try to convince first. I'd start with the people a bit closer to the middle of the bell curve.
So, instead of trying to convince extremists that they want our better voting system, I think the non-extremists should put a good voting system in place, which in turn will help convince extremists (or potential extremists) to not want to be so extreme.
I think there are lots of people who are pretty far on one one side or the other that could be convinced that a better voting system would benefit them. But in general, the further people are on an extreme, the more they see their extreme position as part of their identity, and less they will be enthused about something that takes that away from them.
-
@rob:
If someone looks at those 1/6 photos and sees a bunch of patriots fighting for a noble cause.... fine. They can also be angry at choose-one voting.
What are the most effective grounds to cite to that "someone", as to why choose-one voting merits their being angry at it? I am convinced that choose-one voting leaves the general public politically nearly powerless, but I suspect that's not what you think is the most convincing thing to say to that audience.
Approval-ordered Llull (letter grades) [10], Score // Llull [9], Score, STAR, Approval, other rated Condorcet [8]; equal-ranked Condorcet [4]; strictly-ranked Condorcet [3]; everything else [0].
-
@jack-waugh Well the obvious reason they can be angry at choose-one voting is that they are angry at the outcome of an election that happened with choose-one voting.
There isn't much you can say to the most extreme of them, though. A lot of people are so consumed with their anger -- amplified by social media and various other media which profits from people being enraged at something -- that they are in denial that choose-one even picked our current president. But enough of them have enough rationality left that they could be persuaded to see that a different voting system, while it wouldn't have elected their first choice, at least wouldn't have elected their last choice eit.
-
But enough of them have enough rationality left that they could be persuaded to see that a different voting system, while it wouldn't have elected their first choice, at least wouldn't have elected their last choice either.
When I ask myself who in public life would be their last choice, the first answer that comes to mind is Kshama Sawant of Seattle and of, I think her party is called Socialist Alternative. But choose-one wouldn't have elected her, either, not in a million years.
Approval-ordered Llull (letter grades) [10], Score // Llull [9], Score, STAR, Approval, other rated Condorcet [8]; equal-ranked Condorcet [4]; strictly-ranked Condorcet [3]; everything else [0].
-
@jack-waugh said in Polarization:
When I ask myself who in public life would be their last choice, the first answer that comes to mind is Kshama Sawant of Seattle and of, I think her party is called Socialist Alternative. But choose-one wouldn't have elected her, either, not in a million years.
Did she win? How'd she get elected? (it appears that choose-one actually did elect her, am I missing something) Is this relevant?
-
@rob She won a term on the Seattle city council under choose-one voting. But I'm saying she would not win POTUS.
Approval-ordered Llull (letter grades) [10], Score // Llull [9], Score, STAR, Approval, other rated Condorcet [8]; equal-ranked Condorcet [4]; strictly-ranked Condorcet [3]; everything else [0].
-
@jack-waugh Ok, and nothing against her but I wouldn't expect her to win POTUS under any reasonable system. She is obviously very far from center, nationally. Seattle is a liberal city.
Again, what is the point here? Sorry if I keep asking this, but it just seems like you are a firehose of irrelevant tangents sometimes.
-
@rob said in Polarization:
But enough of them have enough rationality left that they could be persuaded to see that a different voting system, while it wouldn't have elected their first choice, at least wouldn't have elected their last choice eit[her].
OK, so Choose-one State by State for electors, followed by a majority vote among the electors, got them Joe Biden. Was he their last choice? If Choose-one were replaced with something better for electing the electors, would they have gotten someone they like better; is that what we could say to them to get them to see that they have common ground with us?
Approval-ordered Llull (letter grades) [10], Score // Llull [9], Score, STAR, Approval, other rated Condorcet [8]; equal-ranked Condorcet [4]; strictly-ranked Condorcet [3]; everything else [0].
-
@jack-waugh Well the whole issue with president is complicated by the electoral college, so for such hypotheticals such as this, it's probably easier to imagine some system that doesn't include the electoral college. Adapting a better voting method to presidential elections is a complex topic of its own.
But the point is, under a better election system, middle ground candidates would be more likely to run and to be elected. Political figures today that are closer to the middle include Democrats like Sinema and Manchin, and Republicans like Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger and Mitt Romney. John McCain was fairly in the middle (but Palin wasn't, of course). Perot was in the middle in that he appealed almost equally to both sides. Arnold Schwarzenegger is centrist by national standards, but was on the right relative to California.
None of these are centrist on all things, of course. Cheney is very conservative on most policies, she just doesn't toe the Republican line on things related to rejecting election outcomes and other things specific to the changes in the Republican party in the last few years. And none are really great examples because they are operating in a system that is biased against centrists, so they have a lot of hate directed at them (more from their own party than the opposite party).
As for Biden, that's a bit tricky. He's actually considered quite moderate. I suspect most of the hate directed at him from the right is because the country had gotten highly polarized in the few years prior.
