Complex Numbers

Unthinkable

Well, I did promise "posts of substance;" this came up at random, and it qualifies -- though there's not much for me to say about it.

Sick of choosing between the 'lesser of two evils'? Push for electoral reform  

It could be argued that anyone with enough arrogance (however well they might hide it) to run for office is usually going to be evil, even discounting that what one tribe considers good, the other considers evil. Oh, sure, you can find counterexamples if you think for a few minutes, but the exceptions don't change the generality. So choosing between the lesser of two evils is almost always a given. Except, of course, if there's more than two people running, and then it's the least of n evils.

As the common adage goes, politics is about addition, not subtraction.

As I have never heard that (insofar as I can remember), I already know I'm probably over my head in this article.

Political addition is the foundation of a healthy democracy, but unfortunately, our current political system leaves many citizens out of the equation. The structure of elections, especially party primaries, contributes to this disparity.

Won't argue with that.

Exacerbating the situation is the fact that more than 80 percent of congressional districts are completely safe for one party.

That's 'cause they're desigerrymandered to be that way.

Anyway, the article spends a few paragraphs explaining the situation better than I ever could.

But is there a simple way to change the party primary system to foster more citizen engagement and more choice, without favoring one party over another?

I'm guessing they're going to say "yes."

An innovative idea that fits that bill is Final-Five Voting, put forth by the Institute for Political Innovation.

I must be psychic.

Final-Five Voting — this specific combination of top-five primaries and instant runoff-voting general elections — would have a powerful, positive impact on our system. Rather than forcing voters to choose the “lesser of two evils,” we’d infuse healthy competition into politics and help to ensure that candidates are more responsive and accountable to all the voters of the state or district they seek to represent.

In the Before Time, when I still had a gym membership, I'd alleviate the incredible boredom of being on an elliptical machine by watching lectures about shit like science, philosophy, and mathematics.

This is where you're tempted to comment, "But wouldn't that make it even more boring?" Well, no; not for me.

Anyway. I wish I could remember the program I was watching or even the slightest hint of the proof they used, but one lecturer made a convincing argument that there is not only no such thing as the perfect system for choosing leaders, but that there can never be the perfect system for choosing leaders. There will always be a downside, a certain level of unfairness.

But just because it is mathematically impossible to implement perfection -- which is usually the case in everything, not just elections -- doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to make something better.

As they say, "the perfect is the enemy of the good." If you resist change because the new system won't be perfect, there will never be change. Of course, a lot of people want exactly that.

The American system of representative democracy is in dire need of constructive reform that increases participation and avoids tipping the scales toward one party or another.

I'm not sure this particular essay has convinced me that this solution is the best of all proposed electoral reforms, but I hadn't heard this one before, so it was worth it to read. I do believe it would be better than our current system in the US.

Of course, it would dilute the power of the only people in the position to implement such a system, which means it'll never happen. It's akin to Congress voting to take a 50% pay cut, which of course is unthinkable.

But it's good to indulge in fantasy every now and then.