Great Article Dave! Your inherent pragmatism shows through. What do you think of the ranked choice voting in St Louis? did it produce better results? Does RCV work better in a more evenly split place one closer to one party rule? and what do we mean by better? What will long term use of RCV do to type of candidate?
>> Does RCV work better in a more evenly split place one closer to one party rule?
In an evenly-split place, a centrist third candidate probably stands the best chance of winning. I think this is also the scenario where the "center squeeze" looks scarier in the abstract than when you actually put it in perspective. After all, if the baseline (under FPTP) was that either the left or right were evenly likely to win, and we don't freak out about that, then why should we be bothered that a center squeeze at worst results in either left or right winning? Seems to me that the poli-sci nerds let their obsession with centrism cloud their judgment here.
Anyways, I think that's healthier and leads to moderation - both the left and right are still incentivized to fight the centrist for 2s.
In a one-party-dominated place, you'd either see a split in the ruling party -- a centrist Dem runs against a leftist Dem -- or an independent centrist basically hoping that they can dig into the ruling party's middle flank while soaking up all the 2s from the doomed opposition party.
I think this is also healthier. If the district is truly hardcore, then the extremists won't be cowed like they usually are into moderating their policy -- sure, RCV incentivizes moderate *rhetoric*, but not necessarily *policy*. For instance, if Vermont is hardcore Green, but they never vote that way because they don't want to let Republicans win their state, then RCV gives us more Greens, which eventually strengthens that party enough to become nationally relevant. Likewise, most of the trouble we have with Republican extremism right now isn't extreme *policy*, it's extreme *rhetoric*.
And if the district *isn't* actually hardcore, well, RCV is better than letting the primary voters decide everything. Liz Cheney would easily win Wyoming if it was RCV. Ditto McMullin in Utah.
>> and what do we mean by better? What will long term use of RCV do to type of candidate?
As I've hinted at, I think 2 things:
1. Moderate rhetoric. The almighty 2 means only a bullheaded asshole in a safe seat will dare outright trash the person to their left or right. Sure, the leftmost and rightmost will still trash each other, and there's always individual variance. But on net, by inserting more candidates without penalty, the wider field and need for 2s forces everyone to be nicer. In the REALLY long term, I expect a healthier national politics.
2. Strengthen third parties. Much is made of the fact that Australia has RCV but is still dominated by 2 major parties. Well, no offense to our mates down under, but they've only got 26 million people. Not 330. And despite the many decades of cultural homogenization which I frequently bemoan, there's a lot more regional variation in America. The Greens would totally OWN Vermont and Maine. Libertarians would instantly be competitive in NH and most of the West, and eventually outcompete Republicans in many cities.
I think this will extend to the local level as well. A lot of local politics are broken because they're so bound up with the national party machines. Sure, Tammany Hall and the Daleys were legendary in their own time, but despite Republican bitching, we don't HAVE urban machine politics anymore, we have two national machines running ~40 separate state machines or so. Over time, RCV will help decouple local politics from these machines, because you don't have to hand your city council to the opposition's nutjobs.
Firsthand, I can tell you that here in Norwalk, the town GOP basically functions like a support group for people who are triggered by liberals. They simply are too triggered at all times to ever formulate a cogent strategy to field a competitive candidate. And the only reason they ever make it into the 40% range is because of generic party loyalty and widespread dissatisfaction with our particular current ruling class, not because there are actually that many conservatives around here. Which is why no one here wants to hand them the levers of power!
But RCV would basically make it possible for a competent independent challenger to oust our jackass mayor. It wouldn't fix everything, but the Republicans wouldn't mind their 2's going to the independent, and the Democratic party faithful who usually vote for the mayor might actually give the independent enough votes to win.
Great Article Dave! Your inherent pragmatism shows through. What do you think of the ranked choice voting in St Louis? did it produce better results? Does RCV work better in a more evenly split place one closer to one party rule? and what do we mean by better? What will long term use of RCV do to type of candidate?
Just to follow up:
>> Does RCV work better in a more evenly split place one closer to one party rule?
In an evenly-split place, a centrist third candidate probably stands the best chance of winning. I think this is also the scenario where the "center squeeze" looks scarier in the abstract than when you actually put it in perspective. After all, if the baseline (under FPTP) was that either the left or right were evenly likely to win, and we don't freak out about that, then why should we be bothered that a center squeeze at worst results in either left or right winning? Seems to me that the poli-sci nerds let their obsession with centrism cloud their judgment here.
Anyways, I think that's healthier and leads to moderation - both the left and right are still incentivized to fight the centrist for 2s.
In a one-party-dominated place, you'd either see a split in the ruling party -- a centrist Dem runs against a leftist Dem -- or an independent centrist basically hoping that they can dig into the ruling party's middle flank while soaking up all the 2s from the doomed opposition party.
I think this is also healthier. If the district is truly hardcore, then the extremists won't be cowed like they usually are into moderating their policy -- sure, RCV incentivizes moderate *rhetoric*, but not necessarily *policy*. For instance, if Vermont is hardcore Green, but they never vote that way because they don't want to let Republicans win their state, then RCV gives us more Greens, which eventually strengthens that party enough to become nationally relevant. Likewise, most of the trouble we have with Republican extremism right now isn't extreme *policy*, it's extreme *rhetoric*.
And if the district *isn't* actually hardcore, well, RCV is better than letting the primary voters decide everything. Liz Cheney would easily win Wyoming if it was RCV. Ditto McMullin in Utah.
>> and what do we mean by better? What will long term use of RCV do to type of candidate?
As I've hinted at, I think 2 things:
1. Moderate rhetoric. The almighty 2 means only a bullheaded asshole in a safe seat will dare outright trash the person to their left or right. Sure, the leftmost and rightmost will still trash each other, and there's always individual variance. But on net, by inserting more candidates without penalty, the wider field and need for 2s forces everyone to be nicer. In the REALLY long term, I expect a healthier national politics.
2. Strengthen third parties. Much is made of the fact that Australia has RCV but is still dominated by 2 major parties. Well, no offense to our mates down under, but they've only got 26 million people. Not 330. And despite the many decades of cultural homogenization which I frequently bemoan, there's a lot more regional variation in America. The Greens would totally OWN Vermont and Maine. Libertarians would instantly be competitive in NH and most of the West, and eventually outcompete Republicans in many cities.
I think this will extend to the local level as well. A lot of local politics are broken because they're so bound up with the national party machines. Sure, Tammany Hall and the Daleys were legendary in their own time, but despite Republican bitching, we don't HAVE urban machine politics anymore, we have two national machines running ~40 separate state machines or so. Over time, RCV will help decouple local politics from these machines, because you don't have to hand your city council to the opposition's nutjobs.
Firsthand, I can tell you that here in Norwalk, the town GOP basically functions like a support group for people who are triggered by liberals. They simply are too triggered at all times to ever formulate a cogent strategy to field a competitive candidate. And the only reason they ever make it into the 40% range is because of generic party loyalty and widespread dissatisfaction with our particular current ruling class, not because there are actually that many conservatives around here. Which is why no one here wants to hand them the levers of power!
But RCV would basically make it possible for a competent independent challenger to oust our jackass mayor. It wouldn't fix everything, but the Republicans wouldn't mind their 2's going to the independent, and the Democratic party faithful who usually vote for the mayor might actually give the independent enough votes to win.
I think you mean our Top 2 Approval primary, right?
Tishaura's mayor, as she always should have been. I think it worked out.