Sturmwolke
564
   |
Posted - 2014.05.11 04:11:00 -
[2] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:
yeah really, take the votes out of voting and we'll all be better off. I'm not a big fan of STV, more from a philosophical standpoint tied to European socialism than anything else, BUT, it has generated CSM's with better overall representation than the old, traditional method. It has allowed some candidates with less well-organized voters from smaller groups to get elected or at least make a showing. That would not have happened under the old method. If what you are looking for is someone to get a spot "just because" rather than as a the result of garnering sufficient backing from the community i.e. votes, well, you are probably setting yourself up for being disappointed and nothing in the world is going to change that.
Why do people get worked up when someone decides not to vote? The entire system is setup for a fail when it relies on the number of votes to set the threshold for votes. Want to manipulate it? Deliberately promote apathy through various means, create chaos or distraction that leads to low voter turn out, run deliberate shenanigans that makes future voters opt out and so on so forth. Of course, this won't show up if you're looking from a purely mathematical perspective, naively hypothesizing or projecting that a larger pool of voters would dilute the effects of individual power blocs. The reverse is easy to gloss over.
The STV system inherently promotes conglomeration or consolidation of candidates into loose association. A loose knit alliance between candidates (with voting power to back them up) not unlike the Japanese keiretsu. There is also saying, "I wash your back, you wash my back". Has it generated a CSM with better overall representation (as you claim)? Yep sure. Picture is still the same even if you look at it upside-down. The Mona Lisa still isn't smiling.
Dirk MacGirk wrote:Wall Street isn't part of our voting. Money isn't buying votes or influencing elections. In that regard, we're pretty lucky. Influence does occur but that influence is based on social influence. Don't fault people with charisma just because you don't like the outcome of that influence.
You're misunderstanding the Wallstreet context. It's not about money (and yes, candidates do buy votes, hello Earth to Dirk MacGirk? ... but we're not concerned about that). I should have chosen a different word.
Think, what else does Wallstreet do over there?
To end this, the old voting system isn't perfect. The problem here is that the replacement is the same or worse, while being more tedious and complex.
P.S. I debated whether to post that original post. Cba to argue on the internet forums for something inconsequential, getting too old for this sheet.
Consider this my last post on this thread. EVE beckons. |