pull down to refresh
23 sats \ 4 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic 19 Nov \ on: The (Predictable) Defeat of Moderate Reforms | The Libertarian Institute Politics_And_Law
Yeah, as someone living in a RCV shthole, I can tell you that is one way to a one party state. Let people have one vote and count that one vote. Ranking your choices and then eliminating the losers is giving the voters more than one vote because of the ranking, eliminating then revoting. It is a real shtty sytem. We almost revoked it.
This is an idea that sounds pretty good. The reasoning seems to make sense.
When you actually study the theory underlying RCV, though, you discover that there is no such thing as a non-arbitrary way to aggregate these choices. This means the party that manages to pass an RCV system can discretely design it to give them an advantage.
reply
What do you mean "discretely" there is no discretely about it. It is in-your-face rigging. We have a one-party situation and there is no breaking out, shy of revoking RCV.
Apparently, Joseph Solis-Mullen does not live in one of these sh*tholes.
reply
What I mean is the design of the RCV system doesn't have to obviously favor one party or the other.
The counting and scoring rules might sound perfectly reasonable, but there were literally an infinite number of other options that would have seemed just as reasonable.
reply
Ok, seeming reasonable and being reasonable are two vastly different situations.
The obviousnes of the situation is not always there. It is quite hidden because it requires a majority vote to put into place. Not everyone in any party appreciates rigging.
reply