[kennysoona]

> There are a number of clear weaknesses in the above post already.

You mean my post? I'd say the weakness in what I propose are no where near as bad as the weaknesses in the system we currently have.

> there is a whole academic discipline about optimal voting.

And I would never discard that or the results of the relevant research, but I genuinely think the system we have in place is too flawed, to fundamentally broken, to really make progress or fix things. Half the country literally considered anything from any legitimate source that clashes with their beliefs as 'fake news'.

How does academia suggest this problem should be addressed?

[mdp2021]

> You mean my post

No, I meant that about «weighted votes» with heavily imperfect criteria for the weighing.

> no where near as bad

Never an excuse for skipping due diligence.

> suggest

I suggest the problem is taken into serious consideration, because already looking at phenomena like gerrymandering is astonishing, and anti-intellectualism is abasing on both sides (of the failed and the failing), etc. There are leaking faucets: stop ignoring them, plan and fix them. That means, find solutions, propose them, convince the public, have them implemented.

[kennysoona]

> That means, find solutions, propose them, convince the public, have them implemented.

How? Half the public outright denies truth and fact, proudly.

[mdp2021]

By catching the train of a party that makes fixing problem P according to new academic solution S part of its electoral campaign programme.

[kennysoona]

Yeah, no shot. Half the population will reject solution S no matter what.

[mdp2021]

That has no impact on legislation unless the rule gets later repealed.

[kennysoona]

Don't you have that backwards in assuming the solution is already implemented? My point is it would not be able to be.