That's incredible. Our two party system is so clearly suboptimal, yet there seems to be no strong agreement, or even leading ideas, on what we can do to improve it.
One day... if we can overcome our deeply set ideologies...
One day... if we can overcome our deeply set ideologies...
strong agreement on what we can do to improve it.
Change the way your state votes away from FPTP to a preferential voting system.
https://www.reddit.com/r/EndFPTP/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Comparison_of_Schulze...
https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2016/11/10/maine-became...
Of course, we may also need to consider the notion that the voting system is only a minor problem compared to other aspects of our governance model.
It makes quite a lot of sense as a downside in limited, party based voting situations. IE, if you were an independent in a theoretical senate where 50 republicans, 50 democrats and you were to vote on a party-line proposition.
If non-dictatorship were being violated, you'd know. The non-dictatorship criterion states that the following situation is impossible:
- Out of all the voters, there is one in particular, who we'll call K.
- The election outcome is always identical to whatever K voted, no matter what anyone else voted.
So, if it isn't possible that a single person ranked candidate A first, the rest of the country ranked candidate B first, and the election nevertheless ranked candidate A first, then the election system does not violate the non-dictatorship criterion.
With that in mind, I am totally confused as to the point you're trying to make? The reason we don't worry about dictatorship is that we don't use systems that exhibit it, not that we have one but nobody knows who it is.
The result is that Arrow's theorem itself isn't a rebuttal, as per my first point, and discussion should center around the other two elements of Arrow's theory. Specifically whether or not they are, in practice, worse than our current situation.
Which they aren't. So why trot out Arrow's theorem for the 90th time?
This is an error on your part. Your example does not violate non-dictatorship; the rules of the election permit anyone to vote against their party registration.
Arrow's theorem is about the design of elections, not predictions about how people will vote in practice.
FPTP is by far worse than any preferential vote count.
FPTP will literally throw your vote away if you do not vote for one of the two perceived """"popular"""" parties.
It will also "literally throw your vote away" if you do vote for one of the two perceived "popular" parties. This is an old observation.
And yet, interest groups that vote continue to get better results than interest groups that don't.
Given this, there is an argument for both parties wanting this so that they could potentially have more power in areas where they do not now...
You can do literally anything. Saying "it's impractical" is just you getting in your own way.
Clearly the US healthcare system is all screwed up. Its astonishing that the richest country in the world can't provide basic healthcare to all its citizens. The US spends far more on health than any other country, yet the life expectancy of the American population is not longer but actually shorter than in other countries that spend far less. https://ourworldindata.org/the-link-between-life-expectancy-...
That's clearly bad for many Americans. Yet... America's problem is the rest of the world's gain. Countries that don't have the US's structural problems can benefit from the US's enormous medical research outcomes, without their broken healthcare system.
The two party electoral system is the same. There's been a steady move to more proportional representation systems in other democracies around the world. Yet the US persists with a divisive, broken system.
Yet... if the US got its act together and looked outwards instead of inwards, it would be a fiercer competitor to other countries. So while it certainly looks from the outside to be somewhat insane the way the US political system works, maybe it holds the US back and helps others outside - keeping the world a bit balanced, since the US holds many other competitive cards such as immense scale, vast access to capital, etc.
Its possible to look at a lot of the recent developments a bit like this - perhaps bad for the US domestically, perhaps good for the world as a whole.
So net neutrality is going to get undermined? That's bad for the American consumer, for sure. But maybe if its bad for pure internet companies also, then it might be good for their offshore competitors.
Unfortunately, I've yet to acquire a good handle on the real world impact such alternatives would bring. Does anyone know of analysis that looks at how countries that have implemented these systems have benefitted?
Even if they held only 4 seats, would change the entire political landscape.
Breaking the dialectic stranglehold the two party system has on this country would be the benefit. Nothing's perfect, but multiparty gives the system more diverse voices, more opportunity for people to choose and think for themselves.
Libertarianism that Ron Paul was pushing in 2008 and 2012 Republican primaries was worth considering (and I personally would love if the guy won), but notice how he had to choose one of the two major parties to get noticed, just like Trump did in the last cycle and other non-mainstream candidates did before them.
We have First Past The Post voting and Duverger's Law says as a result we will have two real parties.
Otherwise any kind of voting system is similar to your monthly vote on budget, where you, your spouse and your 4 kids have an equal right to vote. In such situation, you endup with unpaid bills, utilities shut down, bunch of candy and newest set of playstation games.