[lbo-talk] ruling class

[Josh Narins]

> 
> 
> Josh Narins wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > Voting systems are a subset of Social Choice theory of Game Theory. The
> > kind Americans have is called first past the post(FPTP) or "lone mark."
> > It is the least expressive of any system.
> 
> The only way some alternative voting procedure could be introduced is if
> it were approved by a large majority of the politicians who are
> committed and will remain committed to the present system, for two
> reasons: (a) the present system is in the interest of politicians who
> are elected by it (duh!) and, more importantly, (b) it is in the
> interest of those elements of the population (see subject line above)
> whose interests those politicians are committed to serving.

1. America used to have open ballots, about 40 years after Australia had
the secret ballot, America got them. 

2. If one party consistently gets beaten because a third party
undermines its support (see: Bush running ads for Nader in Oregon) then
that defeated party will rationally favor an advanced voting system.

3. Every third party would naturally favor it, and currently allegiance
to the two parties is below average.

4. Voting happens at the State level. Vermont has already adopted,
temporarily, a ranked ballot system. It was used in the Mayor's race for
Burlington. The not greatly popular Democrat was not sunk by the
Progressive.

5. It's rational. Sorry, but the fact that 2,000 years ago the Romans
had a more sophisticated voting system than modern Americans sucks.

By the way, Condorcet was a friend of Thomas Jefferson's. Jefferson
spent a lot of time in salons in Paris, including Condorcet's, plotting
the French Revolution.