Yougov again. Have you voted in every general election?
-
@fbmac Same thing. A new voting scheme doesn't magically make any of them better nor does it create new candidates.
-
@fbmac said in Yougov again. Have you voted in every general election?:
all countries have monster trucks if you have money to buy one
True, but only in the US do you find significant numbers of people retarded enough to want to.
-
@fbmac said in Yougov again. Have you voted in every general election?:
great majority of people I talk to here say all candidates suck.
I've been saying that for years. Anyone who didn't suck either wouldn't want the job or wouldn't have a chance of getting nominated.
-
@boomzilla said in Yougov again. Have you voted in every general election?:
Whiners like to whine that democracy is broken when the people they like don't get elected.
That's true, but it's also not what I'm doing.
@boomzilla said in Yougov again. Have you voted in every general election?:
No one can agree on what's best or even acceptable
That's why we vote it out. Are you even paying attention?
@boomzilla said in Yougov again. Have you voted in every general election?:
No technical "fix" to voting is going to change that.
There are voting systems that capture the electorate's will much better than other systems. You guys use a very simplistic (not simple) model that completely fails to do that.
-
@boomzilla said in Yougov again. Have you voted in every general election?:
A new voting scheme doesn't magically make any of them better nor does it create new candidates.
Holy shit, the ignorance. "create new candidates" is EXACTLY what better electoral systems do because you have less two-party oligarchy. Now I know you're not paying attention, you're just talking out of you arse.
-
@another_sam said in Yougov again. Have you voted in every general election?:
That's why we vote it out. Are you even paying attention?
Yes, I'm paying attention.
@another_sam said in Yougov again. Have you voted in every general election?:
There are voting systems that capture the electorate's will much better than other systems. You guys use a very simplistic (not simple) model that completely fails to do that.
There's no "electorate's will" to begin with, is my point.
@another_sam said in Yougov again. Have you voted in every general election?:
Holy shit, the ignorance. "create new candidates" is EXACTLY what better electoral systems do because you have less two-party oligarchy. Now I know you're not paying attention, you're just talking out of you arse.
You're free to fool yourself about that if you want.
-
@boomzilla said in Yougov again. Have you voted in every general election?:
There's no "electorate's will" to begin with, is my point.
Then what are we voting for? Why don't we just have some dude in charge with a fancy title like "King" or "Emperor" that gets to choose?
@boomzilla said in Yougov again. Have you voted in every general election?:
You're free to fool yourself about that if you want.
I have real-world evidence on my side. What do you got?
-
@another_sam said in Yougov again. Have you voted in every general election?:
Then what are we voting for?
Whatever's on the ballot. Anthopomorphizing the result into "the will of the electorate" doesn't make much sense when the winner barely cracks 50% though.
@another_sam said in Yougov again. Have you voted in every general election?:
I have real-world evidence on my side. What do you got?
What's the evidence?
-
@boomzilla said in Yougov again. Have you voted in every general election?:
Whatever's on the ballot.
That's the electorate expressing their will.
@boomzilla said in Yougov again. Have you voted in every general election?:
Anthopomorphizing the result
isn't what happens when individual's choices are aggregated.
@boomzilla said in Yougov again. Have you voted in every general election?:
the winner barely cracks 50%
There are superior voting systems where this statement is nonsensical. It's also not reasonable to expect one candidate to receive more than 50% a majority of the time because there should be more than two candidates.
@boomzilla said in Yougov again. Have you voted in every general election?:
What's the evidence?
Your two-party system is the primary evidence, as opposed to robust democracies where multiple parties exist, independants stand a chance of election and minority governments are a thing.
-
@another_sam said in Yougov again. Have you voted in every general election?:
two-party system
Preferential voting is better, but without that, any party that splits simply takes votes away from itself.
-
@another_sam said in Yougov again. Have you voted in every general election?:
There are superior voting systems where this statement is nonsensical. It's also not reasonable to expect one candidate to receive more than 50% a majority of the time because there should be more than two candidates.
And so you're back to candidates that people don't like, but don't like less than some others.
@another_sam said in Yougov again. Have you voted in every general election?:
Your two-party system is the primary evidence, as opposed to robust democracies where multiple parties exist, independants stand a chance of election and minority governments are a thing.
IOW: no, you have no evidence (or at least you're not explaining it sufficiently for anyone who doesn't already believe). Our equivalent to "minority government" would be "divided government," where multiple parties need to cooperate to do stuff. And I'd say those situations tend to produce the best results.
-
@boomzilla said in Yougov again. Have you voted in every general election?:
And so you're back to candidates that people don't like, but don't like less than some others.
The difference is in a preferential system voters are able to express exactly that, to vary degrees depending on exactly what preferencing system is in use.
@boomzilla said in Yougov again. Have you voted in every general election?:
or at least you're not explaining it sufficiently for anyone who doesn't already believe
That may be the case.
@boomzilla said in Yougov again. Have you voted in every general election?:
Our equivalent to "minority government" would be "divided government," where multiple parties need to cooperate to do stuff
You're talking about different parties gaining a majority in each of the houses? That's not the same thing at all, and not least because your two parties are two sides of the same coin to begin with because a lack of preferential voting.
I agree with you that the best outcomes occur when no party has a clear majority. Preferential voting systems often lead to that being a common outcome, so I really don't understand why you think your current system "works well enough".
-
@another_sam What you need to remember when dealing with @boomzilla is that he has a near-total emotional commitment to the following circular syllogism:
- Governments suck.
therefore
- Governments are not to be trusted with anything approaching real power.
therefore
- Governments should be, and in practice are, deliberately structured in such a way as to make them as ineffective as possible.
therefore
- Governments suck.
-
@another_sam said in Yougov again. Have you voted in every general election?:
That's not the same thing at all, and not least because your two parties are two sides of the same coin to begin with because a lack of preferential voting.
Well, that's true to some extent, but they're only really the same to the extent that they're all politicians.
@another_sam said in Yougov again. Have you voted in every general election?:
I agree with you that the best outcomes occur when no party has a clear majority. Preferential voting systems often lead to that being a common outcome, so I really don't understand why you think your current system "works well enough".
Our system often leads to that outcome, so I think it's your ignorance of how our system works that's causing your confusion.
-
@flabdablet said in Yougov again. Have you voted in every general election?:
@another_sam What you need to remember when dealing with @boomzilla is that he has a near-total emotional commitment to the following circular syllogism:
- Governments suck.
therefore
- Governments are not to be trusted with anything approaching real power.
therefore
- Governments should be, and in practice are, deliberately structured in such a way as to make them as ineffective as possible.
therefore
- Governments suck.
Duh. Obvious stuff is obvious?
-
@boomzilla I wonder if the main contributing factor for my country to be shit isn't the absurd taxes and government spending.
-
@fbmac I think it's a lot more complicated than that. That stuff is probably both symptom and disease, though. As usual I'll recommend Why Nations Fail.
-
@boomzilla too long, didn't read
-
@fbmac can you post a 5 line summary of this book here?
-
@fbmac You need more "inclusive" than "extractive" institutions to be successful. You also need a central government that's not completely weak, but not too strong. Extractive institutions can get you a certain way along being prosperous, but there are definite limits (e.g., China). Historical accidents can play a massive part in how institutions develop locally.
-
@boomzilla I don't know what "inclusive" and "extractive" institutions mean. I know they are quite good at extracting our monies here.
-
@fbmac I know, that's the weak point in my quick summary and its their main point, but it's the best I can quickly do with those constraints.