Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Connor Frankston's avatar

What doesn’t make sense is to use two totally different and arbitrary methods for a post-hoc evaluation of the candidates, and then to likewise arbitrarily decide which of those two methods is a priori superior as an argument against the other one.

Expand full comment
Jim's avatar

One thing that I haven’t seen in any of the comments or analysis yet is: if a different type of election system is implemented, wouldn’t the type/mix of candidates likely change as well?

Assuming that a different system (~especially~ once established for several cycles) would result in similar candidate behavior/ positions, let alone similar lists of candidates, seems … rather imprecise.

- - - -

(Perhaps considering that could make it hard to sustain arguments for/against any particular system.)

People who might ~never~ consider running for office in ‘first-past-the-post’ or RCV environments, for example, might be willing to run under another scheme such as ‘approval voting’. Likewise, divisive candidates who currently do well in FPTP-style elections might moderate themselves or choose a different career path altogether.

Any recommendations for existing writings comparing different electoral systems ~without~ assuming that candidate pool would remain relatively equivalent?

Expand full comment
39 more comments...

No posts