{"id":1866,"date":"2004-02-12T21:18:00","date_gmt":"2004-02-13T01:18:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.meehawl.com\/Blogfiles-wp\/?p=1866"},"modified":"2004-02-12T21:18:00","modified_gmt":"2004-02-13T01:18:00","slug":"constraining-democracy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.meehawl.com\/Blogfiles\/2004\/02\/12\/21\/18\/constraining-democracy\/","title":{"rendered":"Constraining Democracy"},"content":{"rendered":"

USians are often skeptical about claims that their archaic, undemocratic plurality voting system<\/a> distorts people’s voting intentions and constrains their choices<\/a>. However, this article<\/a> clearly demonstrates the nefarious effects of one of the most retrograde aspects of the first-past-the-post system<\/a>: tactical voting<\/a>. It seems that many voters favour Edwards and Dean as candidates who “agree with their issues” more than Kerry, but most voters are forced to switch their allegience to Kerry at voting time because they figure he’s the “most electable candidate”.<\/p>\n

In a PR<\/a> or STV<\/a> voting system<\/a>, people would be able to vote for the candidate who most represented their views, while still giving Kerry a second or third preference. In the current system, people’s preferred candidates and choices are obscured and a bandwagon effect emerges around a single, inoffensive candidate about people have weak affiliations and who thus may stand a weaker chance against an opponent (Bush!) than someone with more clearly divergent policies.<\/p>\n

Of course, the main reason for the USian system is to create an entrenched, permanent two-party system. Duverger<\/a> showed how all such plurality systems<\/a> inevitably descend to such ossification<\/a>. And so, instead of elections where people’s intentions are congruently and transparently reflected in their voting choices, pollsters are driven to perform weird post-election psychological probing of voters and their constrained intentions:<\/p>\n

How did Kerry win? By racking up a 4-to-1 advantage over Dean among voters who chose their candidate because “he can defeat George W. Bush in November.” Among voters who chose their candidate because “he agrees with you on the major issues,” Dean and Kerry were tied. Let me say that again: Among voters who picked the candidate they wanted based on the issues, not the candidate they thought somebody else wanted, Kerry did not win the New Hampshire primary … In Oklahoma, both Clark and Edwards beat Kerry by 13 points among “agrees with you” voters, but Kerry got away with a competitive finish by thumping them among “can defeat Bush” voters. … Last weekend, the press wrote Dean out of the race after Kerry beat him 3 to 1 in the Michigan caucuses. A poll of Michigan absentee voters taken by the CBS News Elections and Survey Unit showed Kerry crushing Dean by 29 points among “can beat Bush” voters. But in the same survey, “agrees with you” voters chose Dean over Kerry by four points.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

USians are often skeptical about claims that their archaic, undemocratic plurality voting system distorts people’s voting intentions and constrains their choices. However, this article clearly demonstrates the nefarious effects of one of the most...<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1866","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t