Defending the Truth

The concerns you have about our election process is exactly what proponents of IRV think it can cure. IRV would bring issues to the forefront rather than candidates, hopefully ending the "popularity contest". With IRV people will feel empowered, like their vote actually matters again, getting more people to vote and perhaps engaging people to become informed about current day issues.

If something like IRV was implemented for presidential elections removing the electoral college would certainly be less necessary but I think the fact that it has been challenged over 700 times speaks volumes.

But I don't think that it would do these things. I don't think issues would take the forefront. I don't think people will feel empowered. I don't think more people will vote, and I don't think more people will become informed. To many, politics will simply have become tougher, because instead of two stances on the issues, there are three or four or ten. Even if those informed about one or two candidates may find themselves uninformed about the group of candidates. It would still be a popularity contest, but the game just becomes a little more complex.

I imagine a solid campaiging strategy to go something like this: instead of making sure people dislike the other guy, you just have to make sure people don't dislike you. Sit back and let two other candidates duke it out while you slowly build up a lot of "rank 1 and 2" supporters. Doing this still requires charisma and cunning instead of the right stance on the issues.

I don't mean to say that IRV is without its merits, and adding more voices to the political pool will help. But I don't see it fixing the root cause: people vote for a candidate for the wrong reasons. Can you perhaps explain in a bit more detail how IRV will fix the problems I am speaking of?

Well, I think it speaks volumes that even our elected officials and college professors regularly state incorrect reasons for the creation of the electoral college. It is spelled out simply in the Federalist Papers, which is widely considered the ultimate source of explanation for the Constitution. I would think that the Federalist Papers would be at least referenced when trying to figure out why the electoral college was created, but it never is. So many people think they know why we have the electoral college but are wrong. It is no wonder they want to get rid of it.

Just look at proportional representation, IRV's kissing cousin:

What are the advantages of using proportional representation?

The advantages are many.

• There is much greater voter participation. In countries using PR, voter turnout is usually in the 70% to 95% range.
• Campaigns tend to be issue oriented rather than popularity contests. Because American society is so diverse, it is difficult to find issues that will guarantee majority support. Instead, campaign managers fight to attract swing voters who are not attracted to either candidate. They have discovered the most effective way to do this is by smearing the opponent. Swing voters are more influenced by negative campaigns because they are unattracted to the positive positions of either candidate. Under PR, however, a majority is not required to get elected. Instead politicians run campaigns directed at a particular constituency and the most effective campaigns are issue oriented.
• Minorities and woman get much greater representation under proportional representation. Women in countries using PR generally comprise somewhere in the range of 25% - 35% of elected officials, as opposed to less than 5% here in the U.S. PR has been used in Voting Rights Act cases where it has been shown that gerymandered districts or the use of at-large representation has denied minorities fair representation. PR has proven to be an effective way of ensuring minority representation in Alamagordo, NM and Peoria, IL. Blacks have been continuously represented on the city council and school committee of Cambridge, MA since it instituted its version of PR in 1941.
• There is a much greater selection under proportional representation. Americans come in more than two flavors. There is no way that two political parties can represent the diversity of opinion that exists in this country. Under PR the size of the vote determines the size of the representation, but everyone gets represented.

http://gnu-linux.us/pr.html


Maybe PR would be more wise to implement than IRV??? But I believe the advantages would be similar. Maybe not( http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/...ticles/irv.htm )

Well, first, I think too much emphasis is placed on having a diverse set of candidates and elected officials. It does not particularly bother me that less women or minorities are in office. I mean, I'd like those groups to have their fair share of political officials, sure. But that's not at all the problem I'm trying to solve. I'm trying to get good candidates in office, not a diverse pool of candidates.

The same thing goes with a variety of political ideologies. I don't want everybody to have a very different viewpoint; I want everybody that have the correct viewpoint.

Voter participation also doesn't matter as much either, for more votes doesn't equate to better candidates.

The real benefit of PR is issue-oriented campaigns. But it's not quite the same thing as what I'm looking for. Remember, my suggestion is that we remove the decision from the rather uninformed common person, and we move it to people who have dedicated time to understanding politics.

Now, even though PR will likely change the focus of campaigns to issues, this doesn't mean voters will be more informed. Voters will still know only what candidates tell them. It will still be a popularity contest, however the contest will be more about framing a few of your party's stances in a positive light. So there is no more reason to think that a good party will get the most votes. I mean, who decides which party gets the most votes? It is still the people, and the people are still uninformed about politics. So even though the candidates are talking more about specific issues, they are still campaigning to people who aren't informed.

So as you may be seeing, I think the root problem is really that people are not informed about good political theory, and because of this, the wrong people get elected. If we change the voters from the people to a small group of politically-informed individuals, then we should see an entirely different type of candidate emerge: not one who looks good on TV, but one who really knows what he's talking about.

So, is having the correct viewpoint mean having the same viewpoint as you?

My viewpoints are irrelevant to this conversation. All you need to understand is that there are some correct viewpoints on each issue, and there are some foolish ones. The idea of the reform I proposed is to make sure the people best able to figure out the correct viewpoint are put into office.

This would be a good system, even if I did not exist and had no opinions on anything.

What?!? A diverse set of candidates is absolutely critical to shake up the monopoly two party system. And women and minorities absolutely need more representation in our government. This is critical. Having a diverse set of candidates will lead to more "good" candidates in office. Just eliminating the spoiler vote syndrome will lead to better candidates.

What the hell is the correct viewpoint? Having a variety of political ideologies in a place as diverse as America would only be natural and healthy for democracy.

What?!? High voter turnout is absolutely necessary for a healthy democracy. People feel so disfranchised with our two party system they don't even bother anymore. IRV and PR is a great cure for this phenomenon.

This is absolutely the wrong direction/thinking. By making the system engaging and fair people will begin to inform themselves as they will feel that their vote counts for something again. This is why we see high turnout in countries with such a system. And who the hell is to say who is qualified to vote? That is bullocks. A democracy includes everyone... even those you consider an idiot.

People are not informed because they feel their vote doesn't count for shit. IRV or PR could cure this and bring politics back to the people and away from this "elite" group that has hijacked our democracy.

It's bullshit the "correct" viewpoint is relative.

You say that having a diverse set of candidates will lead to more "good" candidates in office. So it sounds like you do agree that the ultimate goal is to get more "good" candidates in office, right?

Now, having a more diverse set of candidates might give people more voices to hear from. But in the end, what makes you think the majority is more likely to choose the voice of a "good" candidate?

I think people don't bother voting because they're happy with our laws. I think that for the most part, they don't bother learning about politics because they've never really had the motivation to do so. Ask someone why he doesn't vote, and I'll bet your most likely response is, "I don't really care about politics."

And that's fine. People shouldn't have to care about politics if they don't want to. If you don't or care about politics, then you shouldn't be obligated to vote. Would this be a real problem?

I have not met the person I consider an idiot, but many people are uninformed about politics. And I'm not just talking about other people, I'm talking about myself. I'm not qualified to stand as a member of the electoral college. There are probably hundreds of thousands of Americans more knowledgable about the federal issues than I.

But whose vote am I taking away? People would still vote, but instead of voting for a political party, the people would vote directly for electoral college members. The difference is that presidents are not campaigning directly to the people, they are campaigning to the members of the electoral college.

You make it sound like I'm deciding who votes and who does not. I am making no such decision. The majority is making that decision, and they have always made that decision. That's what a representative democracy is: the people vote for a politician, and that politician votes for the law. What I am doing is adding an additional level of abstraction between the majority and the president: the electoral college. In fact, that level of abstraction already exists, it simply isn't being used in the way it was intended.

This is not some arbitrary theory brought up by some guy from the forums. This is a concept propsed and implemented by the founders of the United States.

I disagree. People are uninformed because each day they spend 9 hours working, and when they go home, they don't want to spend another 2 hours researching politics. They want to relax. They want to have a good time, and they want to live their lives. I don't blame them; we shouldn't expect them to spend significant amounts of time researching politics.

It's like the Federalist Papers said:

"the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations."

The Federalists spoke at great lengths about the problems with Democracy: the majority of people will tyrannize the minority, and the majority of people will not necessarily make the right decision. These, they said, are the problems of Democracy. They intended to fix these problems by giving less direct power to the majority.

Let me address these two together. First, the correct viewpoint is not relative. Let me use an example:

Should it be legal to murder anyone you please? Someone else might think murder should be legal, but wouldn't you say that man is wrong? Or would you shrug, and say, "The morality of cold-blooded murder is relative." I think you'd argue that the man supporting murder is wrong.

Now surely the man who supports murder is entitled to his own opinions, and surely having a variety of opinions in the populace encourages debate and discussion. But do you really think we'd be better off if he were an elected politician? Would we be better off if the guy who supports murder had a seat in the Senate? We want our elected officials to be diverse, right?

But no, we wouldn't be better off with a guy who supports murder in the Senate. It's simply the wrong stance on the issue, and if he ever got his way, he'd hurt a lot of people. On this issue, there is a right stance, and there is a wrong stance, and we don't want this guy to be elected because he simply has the wrong stance.

Murder is not the only issue with a "right" and a "wrong" stance; it's just that other issues are more difficult to figure out. I think you guys already believe this, because if you did not, you would not be here on these debate forums, arguing that your stances are correct, while other people's are wrong.

And at the very least, we can say that there are good candidates for president, and there are bad ones. But this can be tough to figure out. Should we have people who know a whole lot about good politics, who meet the candidates personally, and who research the issues make this decision? Or should we have the majority of people make it? Would you trust the electrician to decide how to wire your house, or would you trust the majority vote of fifty random people you questioned on the street?

I mean, why is everyone so obsessed with majority-rule, with giving direct political power to the majority? What makes the majority more likely to be right than anyone else?

Maybe what you mean to ask is, "Who says who is a good candidate, and who is a bad one? Who says what is the right stance on an issue, and what is the wrong stance on an issue?" Well, the electoral college does, of course. And who decides the electoral college? The majority of the people. Maybe an electrictian knows better how to wire your house than a majority vote of fifty people. But I'll bet a majority vote of fifty people could tell you who the electrician is.

I believe it was started to protect the smaller states.

The grandfather clause, legitimacy test, and many others were laws that made it very difficult for african americans to vote.