News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Arrow's Theorem (2014) by gboudrias on Friday November 10, 2017 @09:30PM (#15674679)
> So in the U.S. then Dems will vote 0-10 and Republican 10-0.

Then someone who identifies as neither could get a 6 on average and get elected. (Assuming both other candidates are close to tied.)

That said as a Canadian I'm down with almost any change in the voting system.

Re:Arrow's Theorem (2014) by bradbeattie on Friday November 10, 2017 @09:50PM (#15674731)
Why give a 6 when you could give a 0 or a 10 depending on advance polling data? Score voting devolves into approval voting for sufficiently informed and tactical voters, and provides less impactful ballots to the tactically naive.

No, a new single winner election system is a distraction. What we need is proportional representation, to ensure that more people actually have representatives in proportion to their political desires.

Re:Arrow's Theorem (2014) by Simon_says on Saturday November 11, 2017 @04:48AM (#15675655)
You didn't understand the parent's point. The independent has 60% of the population giving him a 10.
Re:Arrow's Theorem (2014) by platz on Friday November 10, 2017 @09:38PM (#15674699)
You replace the claim about voting method with a claim about who can get on the ballot. That is as big of a change as changing the voting method.
Re:Arrow's Theorem (2014) by straightarrow on Saturday November 11, 2017 @01:40PM (#15677490)
There are options for managing ballot access:

* Since there is no spoiler effect, you could just let everyone on the ballot. Letting abstentions count as zero votes, obscure candidates cannot win. (Less severely, abstention could count as a fractional zero vote, i.e. 0 in the numerator of the average and 0<x<1 (say x = .25) in the denominator...)

* Or require a certain number of signatures to let a candidate on the ballot.