Hi John, this article is an excerpt from the introduction to Benjamin Reilly’s Democracy in Divided Societies: Electoral Engineering for Conflict Management. The citations are in the book, but I only have the printed version, I do not have an electronic version. So I can’t share the citations with you. I have written to the author asking if he has an electronic version of his citations. If I receive that, I can email it to you. Thanks, all the best
The plot thickens. Ben Reilly informs me that his Democracy SoS piece isn't directly from his book Divided Societies (as I erroneously reported), it's a mash up that he did for DemocracySOS with a bunch of newer stuff mixed in with material from his book. And so the references from the book's Intro will not be accurate. Instead, Ben sent me the references for his DSOS article, which I have now added to the end of his article.
Hi Bob, this article is an excerpt from the introduction to Benjamin Reilly’s Democracy in Divided Societies: Electoral Engineering for Conflict Management. The citations are in the book, but I only have the printed version, I do not have an electronic version. So I can’t share the citations with you. I have written to the author asking if he has an electronic version of his citations. If I receive that, I can email it to you. Thanks, all the best
Also, the author Ben Reilly emailed and said to please add this reference:
Mann, T. and Ornstein, N. 2012. It’s Even Worse than it Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided with the New Politics of Extremism. New York: Basic Books
Thank you for this. Do you know which Jack Santucci article Reilly referred to in the following sentence: "A more subtle critique holds that the idea of centrist politics relies on simplistic median voter models which ignore the complexity and multi-dimensionality of contemporary politics in advanced democracies such as the U.S. (Santucci 2021)."
The plot thickens. Ben Reilly informs me that his Democracy SoS piece isn't directly from his book Divided Societies (as I erroneously reported), it's a mash up that he did for DemocracySOS with a bunch of newer stuff mixed in with material from his book. And so the references from the book's Intro will not be accurate. Instead, Ben sent me the references for his DSOS article, which I have now added to the end of his article.
You wrote: "Questions that have long been used by researchers of race and ethnicity (such as “would you be comfortable with your son or daughter being in a mixed relationship?”), are now registering similar levels of social anxiety for party ID to those once reserved for the idea of interracial marriage (McCoy and Press 2022)." I found a May 2022 paper by McCoy et al, but there's no reference to this question about a child in a "mixed" relationship. What is the source for this claim? The most recent polling I'm aware of on this type of question dates to 2016—before Trump's election.
Hi Brian, this article is an excerpt from the introduction to Benjamin Reilly’s Democracy in Divided Societies: Electoral Engineering for Conflict Management. The citations are in the book, but I only have the printed version, I do not have an electronic version. So I can’t share the citations with you. I have written to the author asking if he has an electronic version of his citations. If I receive that, I can email it to you. Also, in searching online, I found this: “What Happens When Democracies Become Perniciously Polarized?,” a Carnegie Endowment for International Peace report written by Jennifer McCoy of Georgia State and Benjamin Press of the Carnegie Endowment. Maybe that is the citation you are seeking? Here is a link to the paper: https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2022/01/what-happens-when-democracies-become-perniciously-polarized?lang=en
Also, the author Benjamin Reilly emailed and said to please add this reference:
Mann, T. and Ornstein, N. 2012. It’s Even Worse than it Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided with the New Politics of Extremism. New York: Basic Books
"For most voters, the major advantage of a ranked ballot is that they do not need to be strategic about expressing their true choices."
Unfortunately it's not that simple. Ranked ballots can be counted in many different ways, and the systems currently used in political elections (Supplementary Vote, Contingent Vote, Ranked Choice Voting, Final Five, Top Four) are all based around FPTP tallies which count only 1st-choice rankings in each round, meaning that not all voters' preferences are counted, and they have the same strategic voting problems as FPTP itself.
Under these systems, you still need to be strategic about who you rank first, since putting your true favorite 1st takes a 1st-choice ranking away from the "lesser evil", which can cause them to be eliminated prematurely and allow your least favorite to win.
The most obvious example is to imagine this ranked-choice system, which we might call "Core Support Voting":
1. Every voter ranks the candidates in order of preference.
2. Whichever candidate gets the most 1st-choice rankings is the winner.
Obviously this is a fake reform that produces exactly the same outcome as the FPTP system it is purported to replace. The other systems I listed above are flawed in the same way, because they fundamentally count ballots in the same way in each round.
Using ranked ballots is not enough. If we are going to use ranked ballots, it is imperative to use a tallying system that actually counts all the votes, not just 1st-choice rankings. Then it is safe to put your true favorite first, because you know that all your other preferences will also be counted. Then we will have a true multi-party democracy that elects consensus candidates and doesn't produce ever-increasing two-party polarization.
The list of references appears to be missing. Please add it.
I'm working on a paper giving a rigorous treatment of the properties of RCV, supporting the points made here. The references would be very useful
Hi John, this article is an excerpt from the introduction to Benjamin Reilly’s Democracy in Divided Societies: Electoral Engineering for Conflict Management. The citations are in the book, but I only have the printed version, I do not have an electronic version. So I can’t share the citations with you. I have written to the author asking if he has an electronic version of his citations. If I receive that, I can email it to you. Thanks, all the best
My co-author sent me an electronic version of the book, and I have extracted the references https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/rx27wtdswmnt0vh8w4aha/ReillyRefs.pdf?rlkey=4dazjpfg5o97d9sb6wwuqkcv8&dl=0
The plot thickens. Ben Reilly informs me that his Democracy SoS piece isn't directly from his book Divided Societies (as I erroneously reported), it's a mash up that he did for DemocracySOS with a bunch of newer stuff mixed in with material from his book. And so the references from the book's Intro will not be accurate. Instead, Ben sent me the references for his DSOS article, which I have now added to the end of his article.
Hi Bob, this article is an excerpt from the introduction to Benjamin Reilly’s Democracy in Divided Societies: Electoral Engineering for Conflict Management. The citations are in the book, but I only have the printed version, I do not have an electronic version. So I can’t share the citations with you. I have written to the author asking if he has an electronic version of his citations. If I receive that, I can email it to you. Thanks, all the best
Hi Bob, in case you missed it, John Quiggin put an electronic version of the book’s references online, here is the link: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/rx27wtdswmnt0vh8w4aha/ReillyRefs.pdf?rlkey=4dazjpfg5o97d9sb6wwuqkcv8&dl=0
Also, the author Ben Reilly emailed and said to please add this reference:
Mann, T. and Ornstein, N. 2012. It’s Even Worse than it Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided with the New Politics of Extremism. New York: Basic Books
Thank you for this. Do you know which Jack Santucci article Reilly referred to in the following sentence: "A more subtle critique holds that the idea of centrist politics relies on simplistic median voter models which ignore the complexity and multi-dimensionality of contemporary politics in advanced democracies such as the U.S. (Santucci 2021)."
The plot thickens. Ben Reilly informs me that his Democracy SoS piece isn't directly from his book Divided Societies (as I erroneously reported), it's a mash up that he did for DemocracySOS with a bunch of newer stuff mixed in with material from his book. And so the references from the book's Intro will not be accurate. Instead, Ben sent me the references for his DSOS article, which I have now added to the end of his article.
You wrote: "Questions that have long been used by researchers of race and ethnicity (such as “would you be comfortable with your son or daughter being in a mixed relationship?”), are now registering similar levels of social anxiety for party ID to those once reserved for the idea of interracial marriage (McCoy and Press 2022)." I found a May 2022 paper by McCoy et al, but there's no reference to this question about a child in a "mixed" relationship. What is the source for this claim? The most recent polling I'm aware of on this type of question dates to 2016—before Trump's election.
Hi Brian, this article is an excerpt from the introduction to Benjamin Reilly’s Democracy in Divided Societies: Electoral Engineering for Conflict Management. The citations are in the book, but I only have the printed version, I do not have an electronic version. So I can’t share the citations with you. I have written to the author asking if he has an electronic version of his citations. If I receive that, I can email it to you. Also, in searching online, I found this: “What Happens When Democracies Become Perniciously Polarized?,” a Carnegie Endowment for International Peace report written by Jennifer McCoy of Georgia State and Benjamin Press of the Carnegie Endowment. Maybe that is the citation you are seeking? Here is a link to the paper: https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2022/01/what-happens-when-democracies-become-perniciously-polarized?lang=en
Hi Brian, in case you missed it, John Quiggin put an electronic version of the book’s references online, here is the link: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/rx27wtdswmnt0vh8w4aha/ReillyRefs.pdf?rlkey=4dazjpfg5o97d9sb6wwuqkcv8&dl=0
Also, the author Benjamin Reilly emailed and said to please add this reference:
Mann, T. and Ornstein, N. 2012. It’s Even Worse than it Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided with the New Politics of Extremism. New York: Basic Books
"For most voters, the major advantage of a ranked ballot is that they do not need to be strategic about expressing their true choices."
Unfortunately it's not that simple. Ranked ballots can be counted in many different ways, and the systems currently used in political elections (Supplementary Vote, Contingent Vote, Ranked Choice Voting, Final Five, Top Four) are all based around FPTP tallies which count only 1st-choice rankings in each round, meaning that not all voters' preferences are counted, and they have the same strategic voting problems as FPTP itself.
Under these systems, you still need to be strategic about who you rank first, since putting your true favorite 1st takes a 1st-choice ranking away from the "lesser evil", which can cause them to be eliminated prematurely and allow your least favorite to win.
The most obvious example is to imagine this ranked-choice system, which we might call "Core Support Voting":
1. Every voter ranks the candidates in order of preference.
2. Whichever candidate gets the most 1st-choice rankings is the winner.
Obviously this is a fake reform that produces exactly the same outcome as the FPTP system it is purported to replace. The other systems I listed above are flawed in the same way, because they fundamentally count ballots in the same way in each round.
Using ranked ballots is not enough. If we are going to use ranked ballots, it is imperative to use a tallying system that actually counts all the votes, not just 1st-choice rankings. Then it is safe to put your true favorite first, because you know that all your other preferences will also be counted. Then we will have a true multi-party democracy that elects consensus candidates and doesn't produce ever-increasing two-party polarization.