8 Comments

We have two real political parties because plurality-take-all elections only work properly for two candidates. If you want more choices, change the rules:

https://rulesforreactionaries.substack.com/p/where-all-else-fails-change-the-rules

Expand full comment

That is, if a multi-party system is even desirable. It does appear to me that countries like Germany are any better run than the US. Also, when ranked choice voting was implemented in Alaska, we soon learned it was a disaster.

Expand full comment

There is a huge difference between having multiple candidates in district based elections and proportional representation in parliamentary systems. The latter gives fringe parties representation.

I dislike ranked choice. It scales poorly when the ballot has more than a few candidates, and it suffers from the limitations of Arrow's Theorem. Range is vastly superior.

Expand full comment

First-past-the-post is the best, us Anglo-Saxons got it right.

Part of me wants Trump to start his own party, since he is the only one that could pull it off.

Expand full comment

Also note: then entire Anglo Saxon world is in a state of dire societal collapse at the moment.

Expand full comment

The Vikings and ancient Germans had a form of range voting. Sentiment was expressed through shouting and tussling vs. tallying numbers, however.

Expand full comment

"The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater."

-Frank Zappa

Expand full comment

Great insights (and AI).

We can all see that this is not our daddy’s America any longer.

Recognizing that fact is a big step toward crafting responses and solutions.

Expand full comment