Also, the theorem only applies to ranked-choice voting methods for single offices, so the kind of ordinary proportional representation list-voting used in parliamentary systems faces other constraints rather than those of Arrow's Theorem.
I interpret Arrow's theorem as a statement that there is no universally-agreeable definition of "fair". You can create local definitions of "fair", you can get people to agree to operate with them, but somebody else can always propose a different, sensible definition of "fair", and that definition may produce a different outcome. It also means that it's reasonable to debate the effects of different definition of "fair".
I'd say the entire point is precisely that these constraints, quite surprisingly, are too tight. You must loosen them. You have no choice.
It doesn't mean it's the end of all hope, it just means that it may not be quite as easy to "turn a crank" and get universal answers as we'd like.
I think a lot of people miss that Arrow's theorem is less a political statement than a mathematical proof, and end up bringing a lot of baggage to it that is not justified. It is what it is; it isn't morally "right" or "wrong", it isn't that it "misses something" or unfairly focuses on something else, it's just "true". What you do with it is up to you, but you won't change its truth or falseness value by arguing with it any more than you can any other proof.
There are a few odd mathematical theorems which almost just seem to draw cranks like moths to a flame: I don't think I've ever seen a reference to Godel's incompleteness theorem outside of a mathematics textbook which isn't eye-rollingly cringeworthy. Similarly with this one; we have very technical theorems that take years of study to fully understand, and they almost touch on other fields or have some kind of "wow factor" which makes them irresistible to pop lit writers like Gladwell, Hofstadter, etc.
It's not dictators that are ok, it's the overly strictly defined "independence of irrelevant alternatives"
It is entirely possible that reasonable voters will end up with a rock-paper-scissors situation among their top three preferences. Such a situation will "break" Arrow's theorem (rock wins an election vs scissors, but when paper enters now scissors wins).
But such a possibility doesn't mean your voting system is bad, it's completely fine to have that happen so long as one of the top rock-paper-scissors cycle wins. This property is true of a whole lot of voting systems that Arrow needlessly dismisses.
I'd also argue that if IIA exists, then it might be a good thing. For instance, if a voting population appears to have a clear preference, but then produces a cycle when a new candidate is introduced, it might just be an indication that the first set of candidates were lousy, the voters felt they were compromising, and the first set of candidates didn't represent voter preferences well enough.
Voters are always going to have to compromise. People are extremely complicated and different from one another. Even people who have been married for 50 years have a hard time agreeing on everything. Expand that out into millions of people and the scope for common ground narrows dramatically.
Arrow's is widely misinterpreted. All it says is that you can't have a voting system that fits those four chosen criteria. It doesn't prove that those four criteria are required or even desirable. Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives is particularly problematic.
The US is not a Democracy, was never meant to be a Democracy, and the founders went to great lengths to ensure the citizens of the US were protected from a Democracy by the framework of the Constitution.
Maybe some day the average citizen of this nation will be informed and intelligent enough to participate in a functioning Democracy. Until then politicians will continue to manipulate the misinformed masses and throw around the word Democracy to make the plebs feel as though they matter.
A republican democracy, wherein those sufficiently motivated can make their voices heard. My voice may be weaker in audibility than a millionaire but still it may be heard if I shout loud enough.
It is not a republic either. At least it is not a republic in a way that the Greeks, Romans, or American Founders would have understood it. It was meant to be a republic, but it is no longer.
The US is actually one-half mandarinate (rule by a permanent government comprising the civil service and academia) and one-half spoils-system kleptocracy (rule by organized factions who get the government to give them money or favorable law). Elections are used mainly as a legitimacy mechanism. You can think of them as almost a religious ritual, like taking communion. Elections are a way of giving people an illusion of control, and of proving overall buy-in in the system, while in reality popular influence is kept quite limited.
Your knowledge of my knowledge of history is quite terrible. I am quite well read, and could defend any of my sentences above. In government, it is quite often that the reality of power does not match the official language used to describe it. Rome, for instance, was officially a republic, long after in reality it had come to be ruled by an emperor.
It's a weak form of democracy, with many freedoms, but not a direct participatory democracy, which I agree is the correct and proper form of government.
Each state is a sovereign entity. They have gathered themselves into the United States, which is also a sovereign entity. This structure is called federalism.
Within the boundaries of each state, there are state-level elections. In some state-level elections, like California, citizens of that state can vote directly to pass or repeal certain laws. This is a form of direct democracy.
Hmm.... this seems extremely naive on the part of the author.
Let's take his approach for a moment. How do we look at the statistics he proposes? Do we look at the last election or the last decade or since the last redistricting? His analysis showed single sets of races, but US states have bicameral legislatures... do we somehow combine those results or pick and chose? Do we, as the author did, discount third party participation and if so isn't that also biasing redistricting efforts in favor of two parties that are not as different as most would like to admit? Do we choose our time frame ad hoc at the time of redistricting?
How do we deal with this problem: we have a district that was itself gerrymandered at one point in time to ensure that a significant racial minority had sufficient electoral clout in at least some districts (including our example). Now that district votes for Party A consistently, but the mean vs. average approach shows that the redistricting unduly favors Party B... do we meet the aims of inclusion or do we try to ensure that political parties are not advantaged/disadvantaged at redistricting time?
The real problem here is that democracy has become this important at all. Rather than worry about how to best preserve the rights of each individual from undue interference from anyone (including government officials) we are more worried about ensuring that we are not unduly disadvantaged in having access to the force that government represents: and in so doing ensuring that we can use it against those we don't favor for the benefit of those that we do.
I posted this comment last night when this story was on HN for the first time:
I've come to expect this kind of painfully unhelpful commentary from the rag that is the NYT. On par with their myopic mainstream-ism, this article's purpose is to confuse and pacify readers with a narrative that states we can continue on our current government's course, if only we were to allow for a minor change of our political system's vote-counting partitions. We cannot save or rekindle democracy with such pathetic incremental changes, nor are "we" as citizens empowered to make such changes anyway-- purge this article's idiotic train of thought. To be explicit: changing who gets elected via more neutral partitioning won't change a single thing, because the titanic problems of American "democracy" (in realistic terms, oligarchy or perhaps autocracy) occur post-election outcome, and occur regardless of whether it is Democrats or Republicans who win.
Redistricting won't save democracy; at best, algorithmic or "mathematical" (a fool's term for neutral and objective) redistricting will allow for the voters to pick candidates that are proportionally and geographically anchored to their districts. Geographical picking of representatives isn't broken beyond repair within the political system, nor is the physical counting of votes to determine which representatives win, though the electronic voting systems leave the latter terrifyingly unverifiable and unquestionably anti-democratic.
The slaughter of democracy in our time is an intentionally engineered result of post-election corruption as effected by bribes of lobbyists, raping the power of the vote in the name of capital flow to those that are already morbidly obese with riches. You cannot have democracy when money is allowed to have a coercive power that eclipses any feasible democratic comeuppance.
Let the banishment of money from the election component of political activity exist as an iron law in any new democracy which is established. That would be the start of having a fighting chance for democracy, which America has long since discarded.
Multi-winner ranked choice voting would do much more good to the democracy of US than ensuring the Democrat and Republican seats are "fair", and it would also solve the gerrymandering problem as a consequence:
This is a good article with lots of links that I'm going to have to follow. One 'danger' with the types of statistical tests that the author favors is that districting may be subject to gerrymandering towards supposedly good goals like making the popular vote and the elected seats match up; but if we're going to try for that we should instead use a proper Proportional Representation system ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation )
Any time the subject of democracy or voting comes up, I like to post this old link that I found in someone else's HN comment long ago: http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/
It shows how different voting systems behave in different multi-candidate scenarios where candidates differ on more than one axis (as they always do, a fact which is not represented by our linear left/right political narrative). A better voting system would do more for democracy than better districting.
Great page! Alas, it doesn't seem to be taking strategic voting into account. (Strategic voting destroys Borda Count somewhat, but if anything improves Approval voting from where it stands in the simulation.)
Unfortunately, there's often no one I'm interested in voting for on the ballot. How do I vote then? Should I vote at all? I don't think I'm an outlier as more and more people aligned with both parties feel disenfranchised, but you don't stand a chance at having a reasonable candidate for most races with the amount of money required to mount a campaign. If you can't get media attention, you're out!
Approval voting would make it safer and easier to run more candidates, as you wouldn't have the vote splitting problem. It does have the problem that running 10 similar candidates makes their viewpoint more likely to win, if I recall correctly, so a party-based system might still be useful in that case.
There are elections for which it is true, and there are elections for which it is not. No doubt Stalin loved the former kind. He also loved to say "death is the universal solution: no man, no problem" and lived up to that to the full extent. I don't see how that's related to the article though.
If you have doubts about fairness of voting in U.S. political system, why not voice them directly. Last I checked they don't arrest people for that.
I have doubts about the fairness of voting in general. I would prefer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition to select members of the parliament. And to add another smart quote:
"It is accepted as democratic when public offices are allocated by lot; and as oligarchic when they are filled by election." (Aristotle)
39 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 79.8 ms ] threadI'd say the entire point is precisely that these constraints, quite surprisingly, are too tight. You must loosen them. You have no choice.
It doesn't mean it's the end of all hope, it just means that it may not be quite as easy to "turn a crank" and get universal answers as we'd like.
I think a lot of people miss that Arrow's theorem is less a political statement than a mathematical proof, and end up bringing a lot of baggage to it that is not justified. It is what it is; it isn't morally "right" or "wrong", it isn't that it "misses something" or unfairly focuses on something else, it's just "true". What you do with it is up to you, but you won't change its truth or falseness value by arguing with it any more than you can any other proof.
It is entirely possible that reasonable voters will end up with a rock-paper-scissors situation among their top three preferences. Such a situation will "break" Arrow's theorem (rock wins an election vs scissors, but when paper enters now scissors wins).
But such a possibility doesn't mean your voting system is bad, it's completely fine to have that happen so long as one of the top rock-paper-scissors cycle wins. This property is true of a whole lot of voting systems that Arrow needlessly dismisses.
Maybe some day the average citizen of this nation will be informed and intelligent enough to participate in a functioning Democracy. Until then politicians will continue to manipulate the misinformed masses and throw around the word Democracy to make the plebs feel as though they matter.
The US is actually one-half mandarinate (rule by a permanent government comprising the civil service and academia) and one-half spoils-system kleptocracy (rule by organized factions who get the government to give them money or favorable law). Elections are used mainly as a legitimacy mechanism. You can think of them as almost a religious ritual, like taking communion. Elections are a way of giving people an illusion of control, and of proving overall buy-in in the system, while in reality popular influence is kept quite limited.
(Actually some states do conduct ballot initiatives, which are a form of direct democracy, as well.)
Within the boundaries of each state, there are state-level elections. In some state-level elections, like California, citizens of that state can vote directly to pass or repeal certain laws. This is a form of direct democracy.
Let's take his approach for a moment. How do we look at the statistics he proposes? Do we look at the last election or the last decade or since the last redistricting? His analysis showed single sets of races, but US states have bicameral legislatures... do we somehow combine those results or pick and chose? Do we, as the author did, discount third party participation and if so isn't that also biasing redistricting efforts in favor of two parties that are not as different as most would like to admit? Do we choose our time frame ad hoc at the time of redistricting?
How do we deal with this problem: we have a district that was itself gerrymandered at one point in time to ensure that a significant racial minority had sufficient electoral clout in at least some districts (including our example). Now that district votes for Party A consistently, but the mean vs. average approach shows that the redistricting unduly favors Party B... do we meet the aims of inclusion or do we try to ensure that political parties are not advantaged/disadvantaged at redistricting time?
The real problem here is that democracy has become this important at all. Rather than worry about how to best preserve the rights of each individual from undue interference from anyone (including government officials) we are more worried about ensuring that we are not unduly disadvantaged in having access to the force that government represents: and in so doing ensuring that we can use it against those we don't favor for the benefit of those that we do.
I've come to expect this kind of painfully unhelpful commentary from the rag that is the NYT. On par with their myopic mainstream-ism, this article's purpose is to confuse and pacify readers with a narrative that states we can continue on our current government's course, if only we were to allow for a minor change of our political system's vote-counting partitions. We cannot save or rekindle democracy with such pathetic incremental changes, nor are "we" as citizens empowered to make such changes anyway-- purge this article's idiotic train of thought. To be explicit: changing who gets elected via more neutral partitioning won't change a single thing, because the titanic problems of American "democracy" (in realistic terms, oligarchy or perhaps autocracy) occur post-election outcome, and occur regardless of whether it is Democrats or Republicans who win.
Redistricting won't save democracy; at best, algorithmic or "mathematical" (a fool's term for neutral and objective) redistricting will allow for the voters to pick candidates that are proportionally and geographically anchored to their districts. Geographical picking of representatives isn't broken beyond repair within the political system, nor is the physical counting of votes to determine which representatives win, though the electronic voting systems leave the latter terrifyingly unverifiable and unquestionably anti-democratic.
The slaughter of democracy in our time is an intentionally engineered result of post-election corruption as effected by bribes of lobbyists, raping the power of the vote in the name of capital flow to those that are already morbidly obese with riches. You cannot have democracy when money is allowed to have a coercive power that eclipses any feasible democratic comeuppance.
Let the banishment of money from the election component of political activity exist as an iron law in any new democracy which is established. That would be the start of having a fighting chance for democracy, which America has long since discarded.
That's why it would be useful to have a system, like approval voting, that would allow non-Democrat, non-Republican candidates to get support.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2015/10/23/...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI
Yes. You can only call the system fair, once third parties have a chance at all.
Democrats, "Man, I can't wait to get in power... when I do, everything is going to be so 'fair' and it's going to be paradise."
Republicans, "Once I get in power I'm going to use the rules to my advantage and make sure I stay in power."
Democrats, "Aww shucks, you beat us by using the rules we all agreed to! Man, I never saw that one coming."
Republicans, "We told you we hated government... see how backwards it is... come vote for us next time and we'll do something about it. Also Jesus."
Democrats, "Ok! Once we turn 40 we're there!"
And thus, Gerrymandering is here to stay.
It shows how different voting systems behave in different multi-candidate scenarios where candidates differ on more than one axis (as they always do, a fact which is not represented by our linear left/right political narrative). A better voting system would do more for democracy than better districting.
(Joseph Stalin)
If you have doubts about fairness of voting in U.S. political system, why not voice them directly. Last I checked they don't arrest people for that.
"It is accepted as democratic when public offices are allocated by lot; and as oligarchic when they are filled by election." (Aristotle)