[EM] Arrow's theorem and cardinal voting systems
rbj at audioimagination.com
Thu Jan 9 21:06:07 PST 2020
i forgot something...
> On January 9, 2020 11:12 PM Faran, James <jjfaran at buffalo.edu> wrote:
> Note that any new voting system will almost always try to be replaced by the loser under the new system. ("The current government is illegitimate! If it wasn't for the biased voting system we would have won!" -- cf. the recently revived call for the elimination of the U. S. Electoral College after Mr. Trump won with a minority of the popular vote.) If the winner can't keep support, the losing side will be able to push through a change.
well, assuming that you can't change the rules of an election once it's decided, the "losing side" can only advocate changing the rules for future elections. but the circumstances will not be the same and sometimes the losing side will hurt themselves in advocating changing the rules.
an example in Vermont is the 2014 gubernatorial election in which the GOP candidate would almost certainly have won if the state practiced Ranked-Choice Voting of some form. it's the GOP who opposed RCV the most. i opined about that in this commentary: https://vtdigger.org/2014/11/11/robert-bristow-johnson-ways/
the loser under the new system now might be the winner under the same system later.
r b-j rbj at audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
More information about the Election-Methods