Some thoughts befpre going to the polling booth tomorrow...
One of the chief complaints made against the electoral college is that it encourages people to vote "tactically" rather than for a candidate that they genuinely like, out of fear of seeing their vote wasted
( Read more... )
Tactical Voting is more a consequence of First Past the Post voting, not the Electoral college. Even with a direct popular vote election, FPP's tend toward two party systems because of tactical voting. Voter subdivision into states and or districts can be a force multiplier in this dynamic, but is not the root cause.
> So why vote for a candidate you don't like?
Un-ask the question. Its construction presumes that our opinions about candidates are boolean.
> The bigger their [third party's] numbers, the more it will make the Parties in Government stop and think.
This is true. It's also true that as an extreme constituency flees a major party, that party can best make up the difference by moving to the middle, i.e. further AWAY from the disgruntled constituency.
> Besides, if any third party recieves 5% of the popular vote, they qualify for Federal funding in the next election cycle.
Which in and of itself may have no tactical payoff for the voter, whatsoever.
Reply
Are they not?
Either someone is worthy of holding a leadership position or they are not.
If they are vote for them, if they are not don't. It is not complicated. Or at least not as complicated as making that determination in the first place.
Reply
Mine are not. If yours are, might that not be a sign of purposeful over-simplification?
> Either someone is worthy of holding a leadership position or they are not.
What is "worthy" meant here? This is not an accolade, or a prize, or a medal. It's a job. I don't care about 'worthy', I care about competence and shared values. The first of that pair is a scalar value, not a Boolean one. The second is made of many interacting variables, and so might be best expressed as a long list of booleans and scalars.
To bring it back down to brass tacks, ... in a field of 5 candidates, what if 2 are dolts, and 3 of them are competent enough for the position, with 2 being very, very competent?
Which is 'worthy' ?
Now, what when I am faced with the interaction of values? if one candidate agrees with my values very much, but is incompetent, while another agrees somewhat, and is marginally competent, while another is very competent, but diametrically opposed to many of my values, while yet another is very competent, with a break even agreement on my values?
My final decision, like any ethical decision in a complicated moral setting. is the end result is a complex web of weighted considerations, trade offs and mutually interacting hierarchically associated values.
Reply
Exactly. I came here to say that.
Well, actually, I'd say, tactical voting (of the kind you're referring to - voting for one of the two major parties, rather than for a 3rd party) is ENTIRELY a consequence of first past the post voting and has nothing at all whatsoever to do with the electoral college (no one makes that argument; you're clearly confused).
The electoral college actually encourages 3rd party voting in non-swing states (as a tactical measure).
If we really want to encourage multiple parties, we'd take measures to implement preferential voting like Australians use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system_of_Australia
Reply
Indeed! I didn't think of that aspect. Now that you've said it, it's obvious!
Reply
Leave a comment