strong agreement on what we can do to improve it.

uh, yes there is.

Change the way your state votes away from FPTP to a preferential voting system.

https://www.reddit.com/r/EndFPTP/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Comparison_of_Schulze...

https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2016/11/10/maine-became...

My (limited) understanding is that preferential voting systems are not a silver bullet, but I'd love to see some evidence that they would significantly improve things.

Of course, we may also need to consider the notion that the voting system is only a minor problem compared to other aspects of our governance model.

Arrow's impossibility theorem is often trotted out as an argument against ranked preference, but in federal elections non-dictatorship is an irrelevant consideration, as information-scarcity prevents a voter from leveraging his unique position as the deciding vote.

It makes quite a lot of sense as a downside in limited, party based voting situations. IE, if you were an independent in a theoretical senate where 50 republicans, 50 democrats and you were to vote on a party-line proposition.

> in federal elections non-dictatorship is an irrelevant consideration, as information-scarcity prevents a voter from leveraging his unique position as the deciding vote

If non-dictatorship were being violated, you'd know. The non-dictatorship criterion states that the following situation is impossible:

- Out of all the voters, there is one in particular, who we'll call K.

- The election outcome is always identical to whatever K voted, no matter what anyone else voted.

So, if it isn't possible that a single person ranked candidate A first, the rest of the country ranked candidate B first, and the election nevertheless ranked candidate A first, then the election system does not violate the non-dictatorship criterion.

With that in mind, I am totally confused as to the point you're trying to make? The reason we don't worry about dictatorship is that we don't use systems that exhibit it, not that we have one but nobody knows who it is.

We do use systems that exhibit it under certain constraints, as per my example. Additionally, these constraints are highly common in practice.

The result is that Arrow's theorem itself isn't a rebuttal, as per my first point, and discussion should center around the other two elements of Arrow's theory. Specifically whether or not they are, in practice, worse than our current situation.

Which they aren't. So why trot out Arrow's theorem for the 90th time?

> We do use systems that exhibit it under certain constraints, as per my example.

This is an error on your part. Your example does not violate non-dictatorship; the rules of the election permit anyone to vote against their party registration.

Arrow's theorem is about the design of elections, not predictions about how people will vote in practice.

Absurd. Ranked order voting grants every ability a vote has in FPTP, without the caveat of fear and coercion that forces voters into the 2 party system.

FPTP is by far worse than any preferential vote count.

FPTP will literally throw your vote away if you do not vote for one of the two perceived """"popular"""" parties.

> FPTP will literally throw your vote away if you do not vote for one of the two perceived """"popular"""" parties.

It will also "literally throw your vote away" if you do vote for one of the two perceived "popular" parties. This is an old observation.

And yet, interest groups that vote continue to get better results than interest groups that don't.

There is no practical path towards these, though, given the political climate. People in general intertwine their political affiliation with their personal identity and self-worth--good luck trying to get them to abandon it. And there are no incentives for politicians either, they similarly benefit from the predictability and clear demarcation of polarization (vote predictability makes legislation easier to whip, gerrymandering is easier, etc.).

This is politics. Nothing is "practical" except what you are willing to do. A man got on TV and said "I could shoot supporters in the street and still get votes," then was elected president.

You can do literally anything. Saying "it's impractical" is just you getting in your own way.

That's nonsense, he was elected President because enough of the right people voted for him. He could very easily have done things to piss them off and then would not have been elected President. Just because his election didn't fit in with your mental model of how politics works, doesn't mean that it didn't fit in to any model. It did, it just wasn't yours.

Isn't the obvious conclusion that one could say the exact same thing to you? Just because it doesn't fit your model of practicality...

I wonder about that... If you look at each individual district, I'd agree with you. If you look at it more generally though, there would be a case for the Republicans wanting to push this in CA (where they are almost non-players at the state level at this point), and similarly the Democrats pushing for it in Texas.

Given this, there is an argument for both parties wanting this so that they could potentially have more power in areas where they do not now...

From a global perspective (I don't live in the USA), this sort of thing keeps the world somewhat balanced.

Clearly the US healthcare system is all screwed up. Its astonishing that the richest country in the world can't provide basic healthcare to all its citizens. The US spends far more on health than any other country, yet the life expectancy of the American population is not longer but actually shorter than in other countries that spend far less. https://ourworldindata.org/the-link-between-life-expectancy-...

That's clearly bad for many Americans. Yet... America's problem is the rest of the world's gain. Countries that don't have the US's structural problems can benefit from the US's enormous medical research outcomes, without their broken healthcare system.

The two party electoral system is the same. There's been a steady move to more proportional representation systems in other democracies around the world. Yet the US persists with a divisive, broken system.

Yet... if the US got its act together and looked outwards instead of inwards, it would be a fiercer competitor to other countries. So while it certainly looks from the outside to be somewhat insane the way the US political system works, maybe it holds the US back and helps others outside - keeping the world a bit balanced, since the US holds many other competitive cards such as immense scale, vast access to capital, etc.

Its possible to look at a lot of the recent developments a bit like this - perhaps bad for the US domestically, perhaps good for the world as a whole.

So net neutrality is going to get undermined? That's bad for the American consumer, for sure. But maybe if its bad for pure internet companies also, then it might be good for their offshore competitors.

I think the common consensus online is: more representatives and a transition to a non-FPTP (first-past-the-post) voting system.

I am very skeptical of this ever happening until there is a crisis that is agreed to be caused by it (which seems very unlikely, since the polarization has created a feedback loop that maintains the polarization). There are little incentives for legislators to do this right now.

In case you want a general understanding of some alternatives and how they work:

http://www.cgpgrey.com/politics-in-the-animal-kingdom/

I've seen those videos, and they do a great job explaining the concepts.

Unfortunately, I've yet to acquire a good handle on the real world impact such alternatives would bring. Does anyone know of analysis that looks at how countries that have implemented these systems have benefitted?

Ranked choice voting; allowing more choice into the process, and getting away from the extremes.

I mean, there are technically two "I"s hiding in the sea of "D"s...

A 3rd party?

Even if they held only 4 seats, would change the entire political landscape.

Third parties in a non-parliamentary government always serve to hurt their own interests. No matter what the messaging or issues or preferences du jour are, they will always end up being more closely aligned with one of the two major parties than they are with the other. And thus they will "steal votes" from that party. The more successful the third party is, the more successful the less closely aligned major party will be.

I'm not familiar with the greens, but have looked into the libertarians. Present Libertarian Party is an unprincipled joke; for a start, the candidate in 2016 did not support freedom of association. Right now, the party looks like a shelter for ex-Democrats that aren't progressive enough for the current climate.

Libertarianism that Ron Paul was pushing in 2008 and 2012 Republican primaries was worth considering (and I personally would love if the guy won), but notice how he had to choose one of the two major parties to get noticed, just like Trump did in the last cycle and other non-mainstream candidates did before them.

A 3rd party isn't going to win any seats. The Libertarian and Green parties are convenient parking spaces for quasi-protest votes. The Tea Party was always the Republican Party. I'm a progressive liberal and I'm a registered Democrat.

We have First Past The Post voting and Duverger's Law says as a result we will have two real parties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law

Duverger's Law describes tendencies, not inevitabilities. Canada has FPTP and several parties in Parliament. UK the same. A regional split in the party system, or a conservative insurgency against the Republicans in Alabama, or a liberal one against the Dems in DC, or any one of a number of other scenarios would do it.

Eh. Multiparty systems generally form a couple of coalitions anyway. It's not really clear to me what the big difference would be if Rand Paul had an L next to his name instead of an R.

I think the idea is that with multiple parties the coalitions would be more fluid. There's already a soft version of that with "blue dog" and "gang of 8." You do need some sort of coalition to get anything passed.

Perhaps he'd vote against instead of abstaining, since he wouldn't be beholden to the big R?

Breaking the dialectic stranglehold the two party system has on this country would be the benefit. Nothing's perfect, but multiparty gives the system more diverse voices, more opportunity for people to choose and think for themselves.

voting with the minority is the same as abstaining.

I think true democracy would only work in a society where everyone is equally smart/stupid, equally educated/uneducated with equal amount of free time on hands.

Otherwise any kind of voting system is similar to your monthly vote on budget, where you, your spouse and your 4 kids have an equal right to vote. In such situation, you endup with unpaid bills, utilities shut down, bunch of candy and newest set of playstation games.