| > it also mentions that gibbard's is specifically about irv. This isn't true > I can't understand the idea that we only get to change things once. Those of us concerned about IRV and promoting cardionality actually looked at history. Between 1910 and 1920 40 US cities used Bucklin voting (similar to IRV, slightly better even) and all repealed them[0]. So looking at history we see that people recognized the need for a better voting system, implemented something similar to IRV, saw that it didn't make things better, and subsequently said "fuck it, we'll go back to FPTP because it is easier." (I should also mention that in Australia, since 1949, 90% of Lower House elections, which use IRV, are equivalent to using FPTP[1]) So we're looking at history (and modern times) and saying "hey, this didn't work and actually ended up causing us to take a step backwards. Maybe we shouldn't repeat the same mistake." I hope this clarifies our differing understanding of history. [0] https://clayshentrup.medium.com/momentum-e5fd12ffce2a [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_House_of_Representa... |
What I would ask, then, is rather than not doing IRV, what should we do, in your opinion?
I'm looking at this as a sort of crisis situation, as our ability to affect our politics is in a state of constant erosion, and the process of capture at work here can only end in systemic collapse - the further power gets concentrated, the more centralized our decision making becomes, and the more vulnerable we become to systemic single point of failure.
I would love to see STAR voting become a thing. I think of IRV in the current context as a proof-of-concept that might show people that we can change the structure of voting. I can't see anyone wanting to go back to FPTP, because I don't really see anyone who thinks it's even remotely working.