Scraping the Barrel
I decided to stop doing those blog posts where I pontificate about
how the world should be. Because reading those back, they even annoy me.
And the ones that annoy me the most are when I start yapping about
politics. I mean, please, like the world needs another shrill, ignorant
opinion on that.
Well, maybe just one more. Don’t you think it’s strange how often people vote for somebody they don’t like? Elections should be simple, shouldn’t they? We vote for whoever we want to win, and the popular choice prevails. But in practice, you often have an incentive to vote “tactically.” For example, if you’re electing the US Democratic nominee, there’s no point voting for your favorite candidate if he or she has no chance of defeating the Republican nominee in the General Election. You should only vote for someone who can ultimately win. So now your vote has to not simply express your own preference, but be modified by what you believe everybody else prefers, too.
Anywhere there’s plurality voting, you can’t safely vote for your favorite candidate unless you’re confident enough other people will too. Otherwise, you’re smarter to vote for your least-hated candidate with a practical chance of victory. (Or vote swap.)
Now, in my experience, any time someone expresses an opinion they don’t personally have, but think others do, it’s a terrible opinion. For example, I’ve seen it produce some pretty ugly book covers. And I’ll ignore it in any reader feedback I get on my story drafts. People who try to guess what other people want end up settling on the dullest, most conservative, and uninspiring choice available, even if none of them personally prefer it.*
I get that there’s no such thing as a perfect voting system. Some are more warped than others, but, okay, it’s surprisingly difficult to create a fair, practical voting system. Still. How disturbing is it that on top of every other form of corruption inherent in the political process, it can be completely reasonable for you to walk into a ballot room and vote for someone other than who you want to win?
(* That’s one of the reasons Hillary got so close to Barack. There, I said it.)
Comments
This is where site members post comments. If you're not a member, you can join here. There are all kinds of benefits, including moral superiority!
Sean Gant (#201)
Location: USA
Quote: "I saved a girl from being attacked last night. I controlled myself. --Rodney Dangerfield"
Posted: 6178 days ago
shabooty (#637)
Location: D.C./V.A/M.D.
Quote: "I will shake your foundation. I will shake the f**cking rafters. Nobody'll be the same -Danny Bonaduce ....& go visit my blog @: http://www.shabooty.com"
Posted: 6177 days ago
cause its phun, and funny.
:)
Allison Maxted (#327)
Location: Caledonia, Ontario, Canada
Quote: "Why do the mice keep voting for the cats?"
Posted: 6177 days ago
Phill Sacre (#1822)
Location: London, UK
Quote: "Computers are like air conditioners. Both stop working, if you open windows."
Posted: 6177 days ago
Are you hinting at something, Max... maybe a political career? ;)
If you run for office in a couple of years you can count on my support!
bob (#2120)
Location: silicon valley
Quote: "they talked in papery whispers."
Posted: 6177 days ago
Oooh, inspiring! Good speeches (read from teleprompters)! New! Shiny! Cool! He's the guy for arguably the hardest, most important job in the world.
Who cares that he's the least-experienced nominee in recent history? Who cares that he's lied about Wright, Rezko, Ayres, his statements, his accomplishments? Who cares that he and his campaign trashed rivals and tut-tutted any criticism of him as divisive, old politics? Who cares that he acknowledged playing the race card? Who cares that the basic premise of a new approach to politics is demonstrably false?
He's not dull!
Robert (#413)
Location: Los Angeles
Quote: "A positive attitude will not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort."
Posted: 6177 days ago
However, it is good to know that you're an Obama supporter.
Colm O'Brien (#2140)
Location: Ireland
Posted: 6177 days ago
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Quote: "I'm my number one fan!"
Posted: 6177 days ago
I prefer to think of my jokes as clueless opinions.
Location: Rotorua
Posted: 6177 days ago
Location: Rotterdam, ZH
Quote: "Funny how the horrible crushing of hopes makes no sound at all..."
Posted: 6177 days ago
Location: Sydney
Quote: "vote with your wallet"
Posted: 6177 days ago
That said, I'd like to comment as follows: your assumption that one must pick either McCain or <del>Hussein</del>Obama is not necessarily true. IF I voted at all, it would be for Slartibartfast.
Location: Brighton, England
Quote: "How much do you know about yourself if you've never been in a fight?"
Posted: 6177 days ago
One huge problem with democracy is, it's not the person whose most popular who wins anyway, take the UK for example:
10,000 votes for Labour
12,000 votes for Liberal Democrats
9,000 votes for Conservative
Ultimately, lib dem win due to the higher votes (all those figures are examples obviously), but if you think about it, 19,000 people voted AGAINST liberal democrats, only 12,000 voted FOR them. Big flaw I think.
They should do it like a quarter final, semi final and final vote, haha. So in the end, two parties left, only one can win, everyone votes for one.
Tim (#3178)
Posted: 6177 days ago
Man, it wears me out and depresses me when someone expresses their honest, "for what it's worth opinion" on any marginally hot button topic (and in the age of the Internet, what isn't? Politics! Religion! Science! Kirk v. Picard!) and you barely get a three-count before someone is jumping down their throat, spitting venom. It seems to me civilized conversation is based on the notion of the proportional response--as opposed to the predictable STFU response you're all but guaranteed for having the unmitigated gall of challenging someone's world view by expressing your own.
The Age of Entitlement and niche realities seems to have created a "I am the final arbiter of objective reality" thinking--which works just fine if you happen to be the Unabomber. Come to think of it; it didn't come out too well for him either.
When it comes to voting systems, there does seem to be to me a troubling question of how much the concepts of "fair" and "practical" overlap on the Venn diagram. Democracy seems to be an unperfectable system that you still must strive to improve because otherwise... the shark dies. Or something.
I'm a Democrat, and while I was neither wildly pro-Obama or Clinton, I felt like, as they say, "reasonable people could disagree" about which of them was the better (or worse) candidate. Obama's rhetoric can be inspiring, but there's not a lot of a record to back it up and no evidence that he's capable of the kind of horse-trading it requires to accomplish anything in DC. And, well, Hillary's got a lot of baggage (a lot) and worrisome ethical question marks in her past, but she does seem to have a detailed working understanding of the sausage-making of politics along with an iron will.
For me, the choice was never blindingly obvious. But I'm the first to admit that I am a drooling idiot. (Although not enough of a drooling idiot to vote for McCain.)
Christie (#2970)
Quote: "I've listened to David Bowie songs that made more sense than this."
Posted: 6177 days ago
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posted: 6177 days ago
The idea was if none of those parties got electorate seats, the parties would be kept out of parliament by the 5% threshold for parties getting in on the party vote.
In the end, it didn't work, the ACT candidate won a seat, and United Future and New Zealand First got over 5% of the vote.
However, in the Maori electorates most people voted for Maori Party candidates and gave their party vote to Labour, meaning Labour got a larger percentage of the vote, but the Maori party still got 4 seats.
Tactical voting - I don't do it, but its a clever system
Gregory (#1530)
Location: Forest Hill
Quote: "I think therefore I am, I think"
Posted: 6177 days ago
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Quote: "I'm my number one fan!"
Posted: 6176 days ago
> Wikpedia as the font-of-all-knowledge. Is it accurate,
> just easy or does no one both to check?
All of the above! I think people unfairly criticize Wikipedia just because it's often inaccurate. But everywhere I get my information from is often inaccurate. Compared to newspapers, Wikipedia is the word of God.
Matt (#3598)
Location: Arizona, USA
Quote: "There are two kinds of Republicans: millioniares and suckers."
Posted: 6176 days ago
I think approval voting would be satisfactory and sufficient. It uses the existing system with very minimal changes, undermines strategic voting and is the easiest to "get" of all the alternatives.
Having tried plurality voting side-by-side with approval voting I noticed an interesting thing. I quickly developed a "gut" loathing and discomfort for plurality. I was surprised by the impact - the difference in kinesthetically experiencing the different systems was powerful.
You can find a bunch of plurality vs approval (and other) voting sites via google. If you want you can try it at my (sadly broken) site www.kiatoa.com.
Sophie (#891)
Location: Devon
Posted: 6176 days ago
Also, tactical voting is a big reason the Lib Dems don't win in Britain. They've got such a low profile that even I (a lib dem) have to struggle to remember who Nick Clegg is. So people just assume they won't win, and vote Labour or Conservative (even though most people seem to dislike both of those parties).
AJ (#1866)
Location: Portland, OR
Quote: "Who said life was fair (or some shitty thing like that)"
Posted: 6176 days ago
As for Obama vs Clinton... better to know the devil you know, than the one you dont... Everyone knows everything about the Clintons. I think we have yet to really see all the dirt on Obama.... But hey, the republicans still have 4 months to dig it up and and I'm SURE they will wait until right before the election to spring it on us...
Abgrund (#3357)
Location: Atlantis
Quote: ""Redeem your mind from the hockshops of authority." - Ayn Rand"
Posted: 6174 days ago
It's amusing that we Americans invariably get all frenzied over politics, even though most of us are totally disillusioned with our "leaders" and we have a political structure that protects the status quo very effectively against the public. Even I can't help being pleased at seeing Hitlery Clinton get thrashed, even though 1) I hate Obama and 2) I refuse to voting, because voting is an implied endorsement of the system.
Here's a way to get rid of tactical voting: get rid of those silly elections and bring back the monarchy. I bet it costs more to bribe Queen Bess than to bribe two hundred Congress-Things.
SilverCloud (#2038)
Location: SANTA MONICA ,CA.U.S.A.
Quote: "Fortune Favors the Brave"
Posted: 6173 days ago
It's a thin veil over the U.S. Goverment, open the curtains and what do you see?
Monster Corporations have all the puppet strings. He who has the most money wins and gets to chose the new leaders. In case the new leaders don't follow
the Monsters Corp. agenda, well they get knocked off....History does repeat itself.
What urks me is fanatic politics attached to fanatic religions.
What I love about your Country is they actually call the shots with the ILLEGALS.
Not in the U.S., we have MILLIONS of these folks.
Peter Wiegand (#119)
Location: Washington, USA
Quote: "Just because it's aimed at a particular market means it's not art?"
Posted: 6172 days ago
It's very sweet that so many of you outside the U.S. take such a keen interest in our political system. Too bad most of us can't find you on a map, much less tell you anything about another country's political system.
Nick Dantanavatanawong (#254)
Location: United States
Posted: 6170 days ago
T-Bone (#3608)
Posted: 6165 days ago
RE: Obama's experience... The last few presidents have been governors. What was Reagan's experience. I think Clinton was called too inexperienced, but that didn't last. Obama even has the same experience record as Lincoln. There's not even correlation between "experience" and presidential success:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Info/experience.html
Obama clearly has shown very refined judgment on economics, especially compared to McCain who admits to not understanding it and yet still hangs onto some fantasy economic beliefs that fit his policies biases.
On Obama's supposed weakpoint, foreign policy, Obama predicted the future of the Iraq war before it started, realizations we've only recognized as true fairly recently. In his 2002 speech, he also laid out the most important issues that needed to be addressed, which were not addressed and that we today are dealing with the consequences. It's almost prophetic:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech
And he's been calling for us to refocus on Afghanistan and the Palestine border areas, where now we've just seen a resurgence of the Taliban. How this guy can get so much correct and yet not overwhelmingly have the support of the nation, let alone get past this "inexperienced" label is a depressing state of affairs.
Alex Hall (#3610)
Location: Ohio, USA
Quote: ""¡Hasta la victoria siempre!" Ernesto "Che" Guevara"
Posted: 6162 days ago
That's what struck me about that post. Also, I'm new here, and only signed up because I just finished /Jennifer Government/, which, I'm happy to say, is one of the best novels I've read in years. I do wish the proverbial bad guys had triumphed, however, because I think the cautionary element of the story would have been that much more effective if they had--like Winston Smith winning "the battle over himself," when he realizes that "he loved Big Brother." But, then, I'm just a grad student with a love of cautionary dystopias.
AH
Comments are now closed for this post.