Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Approval voting?

Rate this topic


Solid_Choke

Recommended Posts

The goal of alternative voting schemes is usually to maximize the electoral power of minority groups. Is that what we really want? I think democracy is violent enough with just two parties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The goal of alternative voting schemes is usually to maximize the electoral power of minority groups. Is that what we really want? I think democracy is violent enough with just two parties.
We have a system of more than two parties here in New Zealand. Things get really ugly at times. It also means no party can get the 51+% for a majority without forming a coalition, which raises political costs, and thus raises taxes. So, in short, no it is not what you want. Be glad you don't have it. Edited by DragonMaci
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many people vote for the lesser of two evils because they don't believe the candidate they truly like has a chance to win. It could make third party candidates (such as the Freedom Party) more likely to win. Well in theory anyway.

hmmm. ok. Well, I'm not a fan of the multi-party parlimentary system anyway. i think it is too disintegrated. With 2 parties, both have to try to integrate their ideas and present some sort of coherent message to a broad category of people. Yes the two dominant parties have misapplied philosophical platforms, but they also represent the majority culture. I think the two party system is stabilizing.

That said, I also think that the voting scheme has very little to do with whether or not a republic such as ours is stable over the long haul. More important is which offices get voted for, what powers are they given, and who can check them once in power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think it is too disintegrated. With 2 parties, both have to try to integrate their ideas and present some sort of coherent message to a broad category of people.

I can tell you that from what I have seen of New Zealand's MMP system that that seems accurate. With the 5 or 6 parties NZ currently has making up its parliament things are far from integrated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kendall's question is on the money: what's the point? The method of voting is a triviality compared to the real issue of what powers the thusly-voted-in have and what limits upon them are, in turn derived from the dominant culture. A change in the voting system is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

That being said, assuming one had a decent Constitution fully protecting individual rights and enumerating powers and limitations with that sole objective in mind, then one could consider how to get the elected office holders into elected office. I am inclined to promote preferential voting, not because it's what I am familiar with, but because:

1) as others point out it leads to a greater chance of variety of opinions being heard, which is definitely a good thing in the context of a decent culture and properly constituted government (not so good outside that context, as GC noted)

2) it forces people to judge candidates and generate definite hierarchies of value, which the Approval method does not and instead merely permits thoughtless slapping of X's into boxes

3) as an instant runoff system, there are no messy secondary elections and the like

JJM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That being said, assuming one had a decent Constitution fully protecting individual rights and enumerating powers and limitations with that sole objective in mind, then one could consider how to get the elected office holders into elected office. I am inclined to promote preferential voting, not because it's what I am familiar with, but because:

1) as others point out it leads to a greater chance of variety of opinions being heard, which is definitely a good thing in the context of a decent culture and properly constituted government (not so good outside that context, as GC noted)

2) it forces people to judge candidates and generate definite hierarchies of value, which the Approval method does not and instead merely permits thoughtless slapping of X's into boxes

3) as an instant runoff system, there are no messy secondary elections and the like

I agree with John entirely on this issue. Within the aforementioned context, instant run-off voting (IRV; also known as preferential voting) is strictly better than the present voting system in the United States.

Another advantage is that such a system would be significantly more difficult to game. It will be difficult to get detailed statistics on the preferential orderings of the voting population. Therefore, a rational individual would have the incentive to vote his truthful ordering as opposed to a non-truthful ordering to game the system.

Unfortunately, if such a system were implemented in the United States today, it would probably mean just more extreme undesirables such as Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul or Bernie Sanders getting voted into office. Until we have Objectivist politicians or at least a third party that is significantly better, implementing IRV is not that attractive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...