The problem has never been a lack of solutions; we already know what to do. Ideas are cheap, easy, plentiful. Ideas for ‘better’ political systems are just bike shedding.
We don’t need more ideas, we need the political will to try one. And that is the real problem.
"We" is going a long way here. I have yet to meet someone in rural Minnesota that is aware of this problem, and that there are alternative solutions like this one.
But to your main point: the will is not in publishing this, but in spending every day winning hearts and minds in small town bars and community centers. I could certainly use some help.
I would be in favor of anything that improves the current political system, including a shot at this policy. On a meta-level, I would even be in favor of new political processes that are WORSE, simply because the adoption of such a policy could prove to people that we CAN change our processes, and then we could (try) to continue to amend our process until we find one that works.
My personal favorite approach at the national level would be Ranked Choice [1], as that would preserve the (IMO important) single decision maker in the executive branch, while removing the incentive to vote for someone you hate just because they aren't as bad as the Other Guy. Interested to hear if HN knows of other/better ways to accomplish the same
I do agree with the general spirit, but do keep in mind that certain kinds of change are hard by design to ensure a degree of stability. Normalising the modification of electoral processes can backfire badly, certain groups will definitely try to bend the system to their advantage, and it is not unlikely that, the way the winds are blowing right now, it might lead to a collapse of the underlying democratic system that enables it. It goes both ways.
Be careful with what you wish: the worse system could stick for longer than you would find comfortable, or are able to stay alive.
Otherwise, I'm as much in favor of RCV as the next guy, or maybe more. New York implemented RCV for some smaller-scale things, so I was happy to actually do a ranked choice, instead of putting all my vote into strictly one option, last time I voted.
I originally agreed with you, but I've struggled communicating how RCV works to rural Minnesota. I've found more personal success communicating this model.
I'm not sure of the degree to which the two party system is a problem for state legislatures. It's an obvious problem at the federal level, but you do still stand a chance of knowing your local legislator to the state. When the constituents and representatives are just abstractions to each other, of course a party comes in to act as a middle layer.
But I do like the idea of list systems. Geographic districts are an artifact of slow communications, which don't exist any more. My neighbors and I have fewer overlapping interests than they did in the past.
Those who currently hold the majority don't want any ranked choice that might undermine their position. Worse, since there are only two parties, the other side is very often seen as deranged, corrupt, and evil, that should be kept away from power with any means short of a nuclear strike.
Only when there is a sizable number of disgruntled voters who are unhappy with both the red and the blue, and would vote for specific decent people, not party affiliation, then RCV has a fir chance of being adopted, I assume.
Interesting, I wonder how many invisible third parties exist at the state or regional level that would be represented in a better system.
That being said, this state government seems rather large for Minnesota, a state with a population of six million people. 67 senators and 134 representatives, and that's within the clunky three-branch system of government copied from the US Federal Government. Those numbers are bigger than California's which has a population that is five times larger.
We're at about one legislature for every 30k people. It was one per 20k in 1973, one per 12k in 1919, one per 6k in 1889, and less than one in 2k when Minnesota was a territory in 1858.
I'm not sure what the right ratio is, but the level of disenfranchisement is palpable.
I think the number of representatives per election district is a really interesting mathematical/social problem in democracy, and I’m interested in what this audience has to say.
It could, but under the current system, candidates who are affiliated with major parties (i.e., essentially everyone who ends up winning an election) already need to win the support of their party, and the process for this is generally opaque and largely controlled by often less-moderate insiders
Also, having viable third party choices puts more pressure on larger parties to field more widely palatable candidates, or risk losing their majorities
My pet theory is that everything is fine the way it is. For example, looking at the first table, if those 260 democrat voters voted for what they wanted instead of against what they didn't want, they might get split up into, say, 160 democrat and 100 agrarian. The outcome is still the same (republican wins) so it doesn't hurt anything, but it tells the democrat party that to win those voters back next time, they should take on some of the agrarian policies that those voters want. If they win on that, then voters get what they want just with a different brand name (democrat instead of agrarian).
My concept is that the whole idea of two-parties-bad appeals to people who are more interested in parties than policies. I don't think it matters what the name of the party is if they have the same policies.
The problem has never been a lack of solutions; we already know what to do. Ideas are cheap, easy, plentiful. Ideas for ‘better’ political systems are just bike shedding.
We don’t need more ideas, we need the political will to try one. And that is the real problem.
"We" is going a long way here. I have yet to meet someone in rural Minnesota that is aware of this problem, and that there are alternative solutions like this one.
But to your main point: the will is not in publishing this, but in spending every day winning hearts and minds in small town bars and community centers. I could certainly use some help.
I would be in favor of anything that improves the current political system, including a shot at this policy. On a meta-level, I would even be in favor of new political processes that are WORSE, simply because the adoption of such a policy could prove to people that we CAN change our processes, and then we could (try) to continue to amend our process until we find one that works.
My personal favorite approach at the national level would be Ranked Choice [1], as that would preserve the (IMO important) single decision maker in the executive branch, while removing the incentive to vote for someone you hate just because they aren't as bad as the Other Guy. Interested to hear if HN knows of other/better ways to accomplish the same
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_Un...
I do agree with the general spirit, but do keep in mind that certain kinds of change are hard by design to ensure a degree of stability. Normalising the modification of electoral processes can backfire badly, certain groups will definitely try to bend the system to their advantage, and it is not unlikely that, the way the winds are blowing right now, it might lead to a collapse of the underlying democratic system that enables it. It goes both ways.
Be careful with what you wish: the worse system could stick for longer than you would find comfortable, or are able to stay alive.
Otherwise, I'm as much in favor of RCV as the next guy, or maybe more. New York implemented RCV for some smaller-scale things, so I was happy to actually do a ranked choice, instead of putting all my vote into strictly one option, last time I voted.
I originally agreed with you, but I've struggled communicating how RCV works to rural Minnesota. I've found more personal success communicating this model.
I'm not sure of the degree to which the two party system is a problem for state legislatures. It's an obvious problem at the federal level, but you do still stand a chance of knowing your local legislator to the state. When the constituents and representatives are just abstractions to each other, of course a party comes in to act as a middle layer.
But I do like the idea of list systems. Geographic districts are an artifact of slow communications, which don't exist any more. My neighbors and I have fewer overlapping interests than they did in the past.
Ranked Choice Voting has a much better chance of happening at a wide scale than this proposal, and even then it will be an uphill road.
This post is an interesting mathematical exercise, but RCV actually has the potential to succeed.
RCV was rejected in many locales in the last election.
Those who currently hold the majority don't want any ranked choice that might undermine their position. Worse, since there are only two parties, the other side is very often seen as deranged, corrupt, and evil, that should be kept away from power with any means short of a nuclear strike.
Only when there is a sizable number of disgruntled voters who are unhappy with both the red and the blue, and would vote for specific decent people, not party affiliation, then RCV has a fir chance of being adopted, I assume.
Interesting, I wonder how many invisible third parties exist at the state or regional level that would be represented in a better system.
That being said, this state government seems rather large for Minnesota, a state with a population of six million people. 67 senators and 134 representatives, and that's within the clunky three-branch system of government copied from the US Federal Government. Those numbers are bigger than California's which has a population that is five times larger.
We're at about one legislature for every 30k people. It was one per 20k in 1973, one per 12k in 1919, one per 6k in 1889, and less than one in 2k when Minnesota was a territory in 1858.
I'm not sure what the right ratio is, but the level of disenfranchisement is palpable.
I think the number of representatives per election district is a really interesting mathematical/social problem in democracy, and I’m interested in what this audience has to say.
Will this result in more polarizing candidates since the party is determining who is elected instead of electing a specific person?
It could, but under the current system, candidates who are affiliated with major parties (i.e., essentially everyone who ends up winning an election) already need to win the support of their party, and the process for this is generally opaque and largely controlled by often less-moderate insiders
Also, having viable third party choices puts more pressure on larger parties to field more widely palatable candidates, or risk losing their majorities
Make more parties.
My pet theory is that everything is fine the way it is. For example, looking at the first table, if those 260 democrat voters voted for what they wanted instead of against what they didn't want, they might get split up into, say, 160 democrat and 100 agrarian. The outcome is still the same (republican wins) so it doesn't hurt anything, but it tells the democrat party that to win those voters back next time, they should take on some of the agrarian policies that those voters want. If they win on that, then voters get what they want just with a different brand name (democrat instead of agrarian).
My concept is that the whole idea of two-parties-bad appeals to people who are more interested in parties than policies. I don't think it matters what the name of the party is if they have the same policies.