Voting is choose between two terrible candidates, neither of which represent the majority of any group’s interests. No one ever elected has delivered 100% satisfaction to the majority of their constituents.

A reminder to support approval voting, star voting, and proportional voting so we can end the 2 party system. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhO6jfHPFQU https://www.equal.vote/

Approval voting is reasonable, but a ranked-choice ballot with either IRV or a Condorcet tabulation would be better.

Proportional representation would be catastrophically worse than the status quo.

Ranked choice is not better. It has the center squeeze effect.

this!

https://clayshentrup.medium.com/the-proportional-representat...

no, it would not be better. see voter satisfaction efficiency metrics from monte carlo simulation here.

https://clayshentrup.medium.com/the-proportional-representat...

score voting is simpler and better than STAR voting in every way, and approval voting is radically simpler and better in most scenarios.

https://clayshentrup.medium.com/the-only-voting-reform-worth...

and PR is a red herring.

https://clayshentrup.medium.com/the-proportional-representat...

Thanks for sharing!

I love approval voting the most by pure simplicity and effectiveness. How does score voting work better than STAR? I thought STAR degenerates into score voting when clone candidates run?

I haven't heard much of an argument against proportional voting before. Your article just casts doubt, but doesn't really make a decisive argument against. I actually don't like proportional voting because it reifies parties into the system, but I only support it because I think it can break the party duopoly and step towards better systems. I should rethink that.

> Voting is choose between two terrible candidates

This framing makes it seem like the candidates are identically terrible. Which is never the case.

Correct. They each offer their own unique flavor of extreme terrible.

And are able to capitalize on the fact that some voters are more afraid of terrible outcome A than terrible outcome B, and others are the reverse, to shoehorn both A and B into policy.

Edited this after the fact to reduce the intensity of my tone.

This “both sides” nonsense is not particularly convincing when one party literally has masked goons on the street sending people extrajudicially to concentration camps.

No candidate is going to perfectly match your desires. So voting becomes a measurement of where your priorities lie.

Of course, media and the candidates themselves will use propaganda to manipulate your priorities.

Right-wing media has done a great job convincing people that the greatest threat to them are trans women in women's sports and illegal immigrants.

Given that the Republicans claim to be the “party of personal responsibility”, I utterly reject this attempt to frame its voters as the poor and unfortunate victims of manipulation and choose instead to hold them personally responsible.

Like most marketing you can basically invert it to arrive at the truth. Republican propaganda continually harps on about personal responsibility because Republican voters are lacking it and desperately wish they had some. The propaganda is a coping mechanism.

In other words, “the point of a system is what it does” applies to humans as well.

Alternatively, they can care about principles and issues that differ from that of the other party.