Re:Arrow's Theorem (2014)
by KerrickStaley on Friday November 10, 2017 @08:37PM
(#15674510)
RCV has some weaknesses compared to Condorcet methods (which use the same voting mechanism of ranking candidates but different ways of determining the winner). RCV can punish people for voting according to their true preferences.
For example, say a country is 49% Republicans and 51% Democrats. In addition, a Socialist candidate is running. 30% of the Democrats actually prefer the Socialist candidate, but under a plurality system they would vote for the Democrat candidate because the Democrat has broader appeal.
If those 30% chose to rank the Socialist as their #1 choice, then the Republican will win the election, because the Democrat will be eliminated in the first round. So the Democrats are incentivized to not vote their actual preference.
Look at the various Condorcet methods [1], and also check out Approval Voting [2] for a system that produces fairer outcomes without the complexity of RCV/Condorcet.
Re:Arrow's Theorem (2014)
by bradbeattie on Friday November 10, 2017 @09:54PM
(#15674747)
I'm with you on Condorcet methods producing more equitable results between tactical and non-tactical voters, and I'd love it to be used for the election of singular positions (e.g. a mayor, a president, etc). But all single winner systems distort outcomes in parlimentary bodies (house of representatives, Canada's parliament, etc). Look instead to MMP or STV.
Proportional voting also has higher turnout rates and especially the list-based system seems to have a higher number of women in politics.
FPTP countries tend to have the highest inequality, too, likely because there is that lack of competition, which tends to allow powerful people to have a bigger influence on the two parties over time.
Coalition of parties is better than the alternative of one party dominating the whole government, because then parties are forced to work with each other and compromise on their most extreme views. That's usually a good thing. Plus, you don't get totally opposite platforms every 4 years. Like say if Democrats were to dominate once, raise taxes for everyone to 40%. Then Republicans came. Lowered them to 10%. Then Dems came again, raised them to 30%, and so on.
RCV is a little harder to understand. But so is the caucus system, and the electoral college system, and other quirks the current American political system has.
RCV has some real advantages, like optimizing for positivism in elections rather than negativity (because you may need your opponent's voters). That's usually a good thing.
I don't believe people have a hard time choosing parties. If anything, what happens in most countries, even PR countries, is that people say that they don't have a good option.
Ultimately, FPTP is also undemocratic, because it allows parties to dominate the government when they have less than 50%, sometimes even less than 40% of the voters' support (at it has happened in Canada, and sometimes in mid-terms in the US). I don't know why anyone would support FPTP when that is the case. Why would a party dominate the government with less than 40% support in election day?