{"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":"<p>USians are often skeptical about claims that their archaic, undemocratic <a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Plurality_voting\">plurality voting system<\/a> distorts people&#8217;s voting intentions and <a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Voting_system\">constrains their choices<\/a>. However, <a href=\"http:\/\/slate.msn.com\/id\/2095311\/\">this article<\/a> clearly demonstrates the nefarious effects of one of the most retrograde aspects of the <a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/First-past-the-post_election_system\">first-past-the-post system<\/a>: <a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Tactical_voting\">tactical voting<\/a>. It seems that many voters favour Edwards and Dean as candidates who &#8220;agree with their issues&#8221; more than Kerry, but most voters are forced to switch their allegience to Kerry at voting time because they figure he&#8217;s the &#8220;most electable candidate&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p>In a <a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Proportional_representation\">PR<\/a> or <a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Single_transferable_vote\">STV<\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Voting_system\">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&#8217;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<p>Of course, the main reason for the USian system is to create an entrenched, permanent two-party system. <a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Duverger%27s_Law\">Duverger<\/a> showed how <a href=\"http:\/\/www.janda.org\/c24\/Readings\/Duverger\/Duverger.htm\">all such plurality systems<\/a> inevitably descend to such <a href=\"http:\/\/www.jstor.org\/cgi-bin\/jstor\/printpage\/00030554\/di961007\/96p0002q\/0.pdf?userID=9803f96d@duke.edu\/01cc99331a00503f125f&#038;backcontext=results&#038;config=jstor&#038;dowhat=Acrobat&#038;0.pdf\">ossification<\/a>. And so, instead of elections where people&#8217;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:<a href=\"http:\/\/slate.msn.com\/id\/2095311\/\"><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>How did Kerry win? By racking up a 4-to-1 advantage over Dean among voters who chose their candidate because &#8220;he can defeat George W. Bush in November.&#8221; Among voters who chose their candidate because &#8220;he agrees with you on the major issues,&#8221; 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 &#8230; In Oklahoma, both Clark and Edwards beat Kerry by 13 points among &#8220;agrees with you&#8221; voters, but Kerry got away with a competitive finish by thumping them among &#8220;can defeat Bush&#8221; voters. &#8230; 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 &#8220;can beat Bush&#8221; voters. But in the same survey, &#8220;agrees with you&#8221; voters chose Dean over Kerry by four points.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>USians are often skeptical about claims that their archaic, undemocratic plurality voting system distorts people&#8217;s voting intentions and constrains their choices. However, this article clearly demonstrates the nefarious effects of one of the most&#46;&#46;&#46;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1866","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"aioseo_notices":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.meehawl.com\/Blogfiles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1866","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.meehawl.com\/Blogfiles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.meehawl.com\/Blogfiles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.meehawl.com\/Blogfiles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.meehawl.com\/Blogfiles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1866"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.meehawl.com\/Blogfiles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1866\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.meehawl.com\/Blogfiles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1866"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.meehawl.com\/Blogfiles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1866"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.meehawl.com\/Blogfiles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1866"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}