It's really lack of creativity on the part of poltiicians and also the public. While the article is talking about a mathematical shape of voting, it also has the shape of a sports tournament. We certainly don't have problems picking winners for the NBA or World Cup. Voting is just too low resolution and there's so much more on the line. Why aren't there elections every year that have multiple levels of "primaries", showing brackets for candidates as they each go head to head with each other?
This is where I put on my metaphorical tin foil hat and think there is a lot of corruption that takes place to prevent fair elections that could let anybody win. The truth is those in power have every incentive to pull every lever they have to remain in power, and to gatekeep aggressively to make sure only those who think the same way even have a chance.
Isn't that what politicians in municipalities are? You only get to vote for nation-wide politicians after they already competed against other politicians by successfully ruling municipalities and countries.
You mean a political career? As in they get elected at the local level and then make their way up? That would be different, because every time they get elected is with the current limited form of voting for a bunch of candidates in one day. I'm saying voting itself could be spread out in multiple stages. But it's just one example of how it can be changed things instead of thinking we're stuck with one person one vote forever.
But doesn't that voting already happen, just inside a specific party? And your chances to get voted for in the party correlate to getting votes from the public. No party wants to elect people for their list, who then don't get votes from the public.
That's probably not the case. Parties operate like corporations, so there is probably a ton of bias, gatekeeping etc. when it comes to choosing candidates and that is often not in the public's best interests. An easy example is populists, who have public support but go against the party. Usually the party will not treat them as well as establishment candidates.
It's really lack of creativity on the part of poltiicians and also the public. While the article is talking about a mathematical shape of voting, it also has the shape of a sports tournament. We certainly don't have problems picking winners for the NBA or World Cup. Voting is just too low resolution and there's so much more on the line. Why aren't there elections every year that have multiple levels of "primaries", showing brackets for candidates as they each go head to head with each other?
This is where I put on my metaphorical tin foil hat and think there is a lot of corruption that takes place to prevent fair elections that could let anybody win. The truth is those in power have every incentive to pull every lever they have to remain in power, and to gatekeep aggressively to make sure only those who think the same way even have a chance.
Isn't that what politicians in municipalities are? You only get to vote for nation-wide politicians after they already competed against other politicians by successfully ruling municipalities and countries.
You mean a political career? As in they get elected at the local level and then make their way up? That would be different, because every time they get elected is with the current limited form of voting for a bunch of candidates in one day. I'm saying voting itself could be spread out in multiple stages. But it's just one example of how it can be changed things instead of thinking we're stuck with one person one vote forever.
But doesn't that voting already happen, just inside a specific party? And your chances to get voted for in the party correlate to getting votes from the public. No party wants to elect people for their list, who then don't get votes from the public.
That's probably not the case. Parties operate like corporations, so there is probably a ton of bias, gatekeeping etc. when it comes to choosing candidates and that is often not in the public's best interests. An easy example is populists, who have public support but go against the party. Usually the party will not treat them as well as establishment candidates.
Okay, so the next question is how do good voting systems choose to solve Arrows’ law?
Which condition is loosened or eliminated by which voting systems, and what are the consequences?