Hacker News Reader

Comment by podperson | Hacker News Reader

An insurgency within one of the two big political parties is probably more likely to work than a third (or nth) party given how broken the US electoral system is. And of course it's the super-low-turnout primaries where we can really make a difference.

View on HN

Broken is a strong word. I studied comparative politics in college include a variety of different election system. It turns out that each system has it's own pros and cons. For example, proportional representation systems end up giving smaller parties a disproportionate amount of power because of the 50+% vote requirement to pass a bill. The smaller party can throw its weight around and create a coalition with one of the bigger parties, thus getting more of their agenda passed than they should be able to.

So, rather than say that it's broken, just admit that the way the system is structured (first past the post) is what causes a two-party system.

I think that the un-broken version of our system is one where votes are still for particular candidates directly but tallied via approval or range voting. What objections do you have to such a system, that make it look comparably broken to the current one?

Range voting attempts to solve one problem while still creating side-effects and exploits available to both voters and candidates.

My point is that each system has both pros and cons. You cannot create a perfect electoral system. No matter what rules you make, some smart guy is going to figure out a while to exploit those rules to their advantage.

Of course, I will admit that some systems do have fewer downsides than others, or there are tradeoffs of eliminating one downside in exchange for a different downside that's arguably less bad.

"Range voting attempts to solve one problem while still creating side-effects and exploits available to both voters and candidates."

This is vague enough as to be meaningless. In what precise ways is using range voting (and otherwise leaving things the same) worse than our current system?

"My point is that each system has both pros and cons. You cannot create a perfect electoral system. No matter what rules you make, some smart guy is going to figure out a while to exploit those rules to their advantage."

Sure, of course; Arrow's theorem says there is no voting system that's "perfect". Therefore, calling a system "broken" can't mean simply "not perfect" or it's meaningless. However, I think it's fair to call a voting system "broken" when there is an alternative that's better along some axes while worse along none.

> Arrow's theorem says there is no voting system that's "perfect".

No it doesn't, its says that there is no system limited to rank-order inputs and outputs that meets certain criteria.

There are plenty of actual and potential voting systems that aren't within its scope, and it is also debatable whether the criteria it applies are the correct ones for a "perfect" voting system.

Fair point.

Your comment would benefit from elaboration. Are there any of the criteria you think are strong candidates for dismissal as elements of a hypothetical "perfect voting system"?

Universality particularly seems to be unnecessary for electoral systems, and I'm unconvinced that IIA is an appropriate criteria though it has some intuitive appeal.

Hm, I think that narrowly IIA is important - changes low down the list shouldn't effect what's high up in the list, or people will be discouraged from voicing their true opinion about the options they perceive as less popular. In the full sense, which includes changes at the top affecting things lower, it may not be necessary.

I don't think I'm currently grokking universality with the depth I need to assess it. I remember it seeming reasonable when I did dig deep in all this, ages back.

Also: we're not asking for "perfect" just less bad.

Proportional representation systems do give small parties disproportionate power, but the US system does that with States anyway. (Australia has a proportional system in the senate which favors small parties in small states.)

But Australia tempers this with preferential voting in the house which is simply better than the US electoral system (because small parties can still sway the outcome without actually getting members into parliament -- e.g. the greens can say they prefer X over Y and then direct their votes to X or Y, but if they actually get a big vote they can still win).

New Zealand has a really nice system which is a little proportional but not too proportional and wastes very few votes without turning some tiny nutcase party into the tie breaker.

It didnt work for ron paul. although i guess you could argue that privacy has more people up in arms than our monetary system. either way, i dont see the entrenched powers letting that happen from within.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com