might be a typo, but it's first past the post , not poll; in case someone else gets it confused not knowing the term.
There is a historic reason why US and UK suffer from this problem the most, because they were built primarily on liberalism and not democracy. (Although to be fair, many US states has actually have quite a bit of direct democracy as a remainder from progressive era at the beginning at 20th century, and we would probably find that in issues that are put to referendums, people tend to vote much less by the partisan divides.)
The Brexit referendum was organized (and supported) by the conservative government, which wanted more neoliberalism. It was more of a populist stunt than the expression of the will of the people. That's not true to the spirit of referendums or direct democracy - these should exist to allow people to discuss, raise and vote on issues aside from the government.
I particularly rebut any suggestion that the Tories organised the referendum. That's only true at the most superficial reading. The whole farrago (pun intended) was founded by fringe nutters in the party, offered as a sop by the party leadership, and co-opted and orchestrated by interests inimical to the nation. (There is a case to answer for treason.)
Ever since the first referendum to join the EU in 1975, the anti-Europe faction of the Tory party was muttering in dark corners.
They gathered political strength at the fringe, slowly bolstered by drips of propaganda such as Boris Johnson's baseless claim, as a journalist, that the EU regulated the bendiness of bananas. In 2013, a nameless senior Tory in the orthodoxy coined the phrase "swivel-eyed loons".
Boris Johnson, may he swing, is every bit as much a fabricator as Donald Trump. If truth enters his speech, it's because it got lost.
_Aside: English politics has always been a straight left-right axis, with the left split between Labour and Lib Dems but the right united in the Tories. Labour had always had a strong socially-conservative constituency, but social conservatism has never been a campaign theme, AFAICR, beyond "tough on crime", which is a cheap vote-winner for anyone anywhere. The Labour Party is relatively new, but the Tories and Lib Dems trace their ancestry back to the same Tory-Whig axis that America inherited. Brexit turned that axis into a quadrant, with the LDs united but with the Tories and Labour split._
After they dicked over the plebs with austerity in a recession, the nation was angry with neoliberals, and the anti-EU gang fed on that. Not without reason, given how Greece got the shaft to protect German investors.
Campaigning for an outright majority in 2013, Cameron (a widely-used nickname for Pigfucker) offered the loons a referendum to keep them inside the tent; if the right split, it would have been a huge embarrassment for him. At that point, an anti-EU platform would not have taken many votes, but they would mostly have been Tory votes.
The Tories were already a neoliberal govenment, and they were blithely confident that they would win the referendum - it was a free hit for the loons, which was supposed to shut them up for another decade. Cameron had nothing to gain except silencing an annoying sideshow. He was already five years into an aggressive neoliberal strategy.
He shrugged off the power of bullshit stories such as "bendy bananas" and "Romanian squatters", despite the fact that they were in the Sun (proles), the Mail (proles with pretensions of intelligence), the Spectator (unintelligent toffs), and the Telegraph (obedient middle class). My apologies if you take the Spectator for the cartoons.
Despite their swivelly eyes, the Leave campaign acquired a huge war chest - namely, money from forex speculators and from Russia, which tells you exactly who benefits.
_Aside: London has been a haven for Russian money since glasnost. Russian oligarchs had been funding the Tories for years. Russia had total access to English politics up until the 2022 sanctions. The report from the inquiry into Leave campaign irregularities was suppressed._
The Leave backers brought in Steve Bannon, fresh from Trump's campaign. Bannon is not a great talent, but, in the milieu of English political campaigns, he was ahead of the curve. England was unprepared for bare-faced lies being astroturfed on Facebook.
Meanwhile, Cameron burned his war chest on fucking leaflet drops.
Cameron failed to generate any positive talking points, and expected to win by default. He argued that we'd become poor if we left Europe, which did little to sway working-class voters whom he had spent 6 years impoverishing. This arrogance was reflected by Gove's soundbite "people in this country have had enough of experts".
A new constituency emerged: "gammon", named for their ruddy complexions; choleric boomers, typically educated and middle-class but who long ago waved goodbye to curious intelligence, susceptible to and active on Facebook. These people are not as bad as your American fox news zombies, but of the same ilk - spittle-flecked rants at the breakfast table, "simple common sense", highly emotional yet sublimely certain of their own rationality. These chumps did not have a legitimate grievance against the government or the EU; their apoplexy was inchoate; they were merely channeled by the grifters.
Combine the gammon with the uninformed working class plebs, who bought into the threats of waves of gypsies arriving from Romania and mixed it with baseline sentiment against immigrants from all countries, and also the huge constituency that just wanted to give the arrogant neoliberals a black eye, and you have a win against the odds for Leave.
Excuse my rambling. It's hard to be concise when you're incandescent with fury.
"Ever since the first referendum to join the EU in 1975"
The referendum in 1975 asked "Do you think that the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)?"
We'd already been forced into the EC (the predecessor of the EU) without our consent. We were then forced into the EU without our consent as well.
If you don't have an informed electorate, then you're in danger of Brexit. I could paste my previous, but let's just say that sheep exist to be fleeced.
But I dint see how, e.g. the UK, could get there from here. If we started having six referenda a year, I foresee the electorate largely switching off, leaving only the rabid and the pensioners. They don't need any more influence.
If we campaigned for this change, the campaign won't survive its first day. There's nothing in it for the legacy media, and it's not snappy enough to go viral.
Perhaps if we first moved to coalition-based politics, the way would open to direct democracy? I anyway like coalition-based politics on its own merits, which I hope would be:
- increased voter information and engagement - moving discourse from identity politics to issues - reduce the power of media interests - offer choices between broad manifestos and single-issue campaigns - enfranchise people not represented by the current dominant parties - capture voter preferences more accurately - reduce the cyclical nature of government - due to which, promote long-term thinking
Germany looks like a happy example; Israel looks like a problematic one. Israel suffers from an intolerant minority; from here, the tail looks to be wagging the dog on all the big issues, which is not a healthy dynamic. I think that's particular to that nation, though.
Coalition politics is still a very tough sell in countries with FPTP. We'd have to start by abolishing that.
Every time I think through a political issue, I arrive at the same conclusion: the most pressing issue for the UK and America is the abolition of FPTP. It's frustrating.
You think it is more important that the right (in your opinion) decision is made than the decision the electorate prefers is made.
This is actually a general argument in favour of rule by an oligarchy of experts rather than democracy.
A lot of decisions are also subjective - not how best to achieve an objective, but what what your objectives are.
If a significant share of the electorate does not understand the vote tallying process and expects an outcome different from the one that actually resulted from counting the votes, you will get accusations of vote fraud and election tampering.
(What I'm getting at is that the problem's not the voting system, it's something else).
If you figure out how to develop those, please include Britain on your speaking tour.
2) Many social choice experts advocate for cardinal systems over ordinal. Approval is quite popular due to its simplicity and effectiveness while Star or Score improve on alignment but all of these are substantially better than the current system. Cardinal has the advantage in the tabulation being that you do not need multiple elections (exception of Star, which is strictly 2 elections), and you can do a parallelized reduce sum tabulation. So algorithmically it is easy to understand (sum columns/candidates, pick largest total: argmax(column sum)). That has implications for transparency and election security. Some people are convinced these methods are harder for people to understand but I'd refer you back to point 1 and add that we're also very used to these systems as we're currently using a cardinal voting system on HN.
I rebut your thesis thus: Oskar Schindler.
I'm going to use freighted language and examples for brevity. Readers, please be generous; I'm doing conservatism because it's the topic on hand, but this applies equally to progressivism.
A meme is the fundamental unit of transmissible culture - a catchy tune, laying napkins on the lunch table, the concept of punishment for wrongdoers. Memes are hosted in sentient minds.
A baby's first memes come from its parents. Subsequently, from family, babysitters, toys, telly, other children, books.
Memes are virulent to different degrees. An earworm is very infectious, but greeting people with "howdie doodie" is not particularly so.
A meme may fade away from a host in time, or be displaced by another meme, or last a long time in the host's mind.
Individuals are more or less susceptible to any given meme. This is influenced by the memes they have already. Some memes reinforce each other, and are often found together and transmitted together - for example, the meme for belief in god tends to cohabit with the meme for prayer, and we observe them being transmitted together.
The belief in a holy text tends to confer resistance to displacement on proximate memes such as the belief in a personal deity, and also tends to cause the host to expend effort on transmitting the meme complex. These meme complexes are self-sustaining.
We might expect meme complexes that include dogma to confer great tenacity on accompanying memes. Good luck convincing a fundie that the earth is old; their memes inoculate them against arguments.
So we have the fox news complex: initial infection is through mild right-wing memes, affect the host's behaviour, and increase susceptibility to secondary infections such as "election was stolen" or "9/11 was an inside job".
Someone with a very strong base set of memes, such as critical thinking or compassion, is much less susceptible to all the constituent memes of the fox complex. But someone with a weak base meme type - say, consumerism and apathy to books - is more easily infected.
I'm not aware of any research in this field. Do please improve my understanding!
Remember that Dawkins use the analogy of a virus, not of an inheritable disease. Certainly you are correct in part as there are analogies to inheritable diseases with thought but it's also important to remember how quickly these mutate and that the mutation does not occur at inheritance like this is a game of telephone (in some way it is, but I hope that was clear). Moreso, things are mutating faster than ever. Religion is a great example of this, as it is a highly inheritable belief, yet the rate at which interpretations of a religious text has changed has changed much quicker than before. That's because, unsurprisingly, the interpretations are a reflection of ourselves and our times are changing faster than ever.
I don't know how old you are, but I do remember a time before Fox news and before the 24hr news cycle. They first took off around 9/11 and then gained many more during the financial crisis. I grew up in a Fox family and unlike my many liberal friends (which I am undoubtedly left), I will occasionally watch such shows like Bill O'Riley, Hanity, or Tucker. Why? Because they are well scripted programs that exploit the aforementioned principles. It helps me prepare for the nonsense my dad says during holidays. There's two points here which I'll rely on inference for as I'm already writing a lot. The first is about how they can rapidly change long held beliefs (e.g. Russians are the bad guys) and the second is about how this exercise let's me interrupt my dad (and uncle and BIL) and tell them exactly what they are about to say.
Everyone can be manipulated, including you and me. We're being constantly manipulated and not always by intentional forces (more often unintentionally). Dawkin's viral theory is a great place to start but like viruses you have to understand that there's a much more complex and intricate system involved that creates a large array of effects and you're not wrong that there are both genetic and environmental predisposition that makes a virus worse for some than others. But the same goes for the reproduction rate as well as mutation rate. The truth is that you can convince fundies that the Earth is old. I know this because I am an example. I know this because the rate of people like me is not just increasing, but accelerating. Apples fall a lot further from the tree than they used to, not because the laws of physics changed, but because the geography did. So either you believe that I'm (and others) are an exception to the rule or that there is an underlying mechanism that allows this to happen. The former does not have explanatory power for the increase, let alone the acceleration.
[0] https://news.gallup.com/poll/350486/record-high-support-same...
Genotype is, broadly speaking, determined at birth. But our set of memes is in flux to a greater or lesser degree. That degree is the topic at hand; why are some more susceptible than others? I'm floating the idea that it's due to the ideas you already have at the time. That's why I brought up that some ideas confer resistance to certain other ideas.
Imagine instead a bacterium that is invaded by a variety of retroviruses, each of which change its DNA. Some of those DNA changes might increase our decrease resistance to some other retroviruses.
It's clear that strict logical consistency is not a necessary condition. Perhaps we could explore what "emotional consistency" might mean. It feels correct for me to say that when a person encounters an idea, the idea creates logical and emotional associations to other ideas that they hold, and that if the emotions reinforce the person's self-image, they will tend to adopt the new idea and incorporate it into their world-view. But I'm making this up - don't ask me to defend any of this!
FPTP forces parties to the center, because they have to be pre-formed coalitions before going to the polls. Single issue parties and fringe parties end up with nothing in FPTP.
That's why the usual argument for PR is that it allows smaller (fringe/extreme) parties to exist and have influence, so represents minorities better.
In practice this is what we see. Countries with PR often have very powerful fringe or single issue parties (often the Greens), whereas in countries with FPTP the main parties are all big tents that just represent the centre-left or centre-right.
FPTP by itself might not be so bad, but combine it with primaries and you’ve got a recipe for extremism and scorched earth politics. Now throw in gerrymandering and we’ve got a wildly unrepresentative election process.
Don’t get me started on the electoral college either. I’m for a national popular vote.
In multi-parliamentary systems, the politicking does not end when the elections are over.
1. The rate of spoiled ballots goes way up, and disproportionately so in lower-income areas (https://rangevoting.org/SPRates.html#minn). Suppressing 3 to 5% of the vote in poor districts would be devastating; the winning margin is smaller than that in lots of elections.
2. With RCV, sometimes voting for someone you like will make them lose (https://rangevoting.org/ClayIrv2.html).
3. RCV doesn't break us out of two-party dominance. Once a third-party candidate gains more support, they can still be a spoiler under RCV, forcing you to choose between the lesser of two evils.
4. Audits are essential to ensure an accurate count, but RCV makes them vastly more difficult because you can't add up the votes from smaller districts to get the overall result.
5. Let's have voting machine companies write more unreviewed proprietary software and make it more complicated, that sounds like a great idea!
There's a much better method that actually does help us escape two-party rule. It's simple, cheap, well-tested, accessible, easy to understand, and doesn't even require changing any ballots or software. That method is Approval Voting (https://electionscience.org/library/approval-voting-versus-i...). Simply:
• Use the same ballots as we do today
• Let people vote for all the candidates they like
• Count all the votes
Done. No new ballots, no new procedures, no new software, and extremely simple to explain to voters.
Here's the intuition for why this works. When you vote using the current system, expressing support for one candidate requires you to withdraw your support from another candidate. RCV is the same in that you can only have one first choice: if you want to rank one candidate higher, you must rank another candidate lower. That's what keeps you from voting for your true favourite. With Approval Voting, your decisions about each individual candidate are fully independent: how you vote on one candidate has no effect on any other candidate. So you can express your full support for your favourite without harming the "lesser evil" candidate.
RCV is frequently criticized by mathematicians and economists, who are familiar with its many problems. This is one of those uncommon situations where the theorists and pragmatists agree: Approval is better from both perspectives.
First past the poll voting with primaries encourages (forces) politicians to go to the extremes. Ranked choice voting can reduce extremism. It’s also cheaper for tax payers as it eliminates expensive and wildly discriminatory/disenfranchising runoff elections.