Why Your Vote Doesn't Count

I highly recommend the following CGP Grey video for further detail about the problems of First Past the Post voting ( [this video] ). > But instead we have FPTP, and why? Its the simplest and most naive electoral system so Joe Bloggs understands it. Its just "the person who gets the most votes wins". The problems this system causes are ephemeral statistical problems that require more than a 10 second soundbite to explain or even to detect happening. So from Joe Bloggs point of view, you want to change his fundamental right to vote based on the fact that your intellectual busywork has concluded that the wrong person can win the election. That's how the UK failed to get Alternative Vote passed in 2011.

The first-past-the-post voting model is broken and virtually guarantees a two-party system where voters must vote strategically for candidates they don't support to avoid their least-preferred candidate winning. For instance, you may prefer Bernie Sander's policies but still vote Hillary if you think she will have a better chance against Trump in the election. Or you may prefer other Republican candidates, but want to avoid Trump going independent, splitting the voter base and handing the victory to the Democrats. I think this is a huge problem with the current system, as the lack of candidates they agree with make people get disillusioned and stop voting. [this video]

> What is the point of this statement? I think he means that it's not spying or infiltration when the data is already there for everyone to see. It's about influence on one area that will affect the whole human species, not just one country, and people (esp politicians) are still very misinformed about the issue. It's about informing everyone, just the opposite of spying. > am I participating honestly in the political process? You make it sound bad, but it's a much better proposition than what it is actually happening: People don't discuss politics, they fight it. It's not treated as a complex set of opinions that have to be reasoned over, but as a sport teams [0]. Furthermore, the way the voting system is designed, there won't be true parties in a specific position, but they're always reduced to two catch-all options with a very wide and overlapping set of opinions among their members, basically resulting in everybody be unsatisfied with the result [1]. And the point of the parent is that, since politics are broken, one can contribute to work around it from within. In fact parties evolve this way. The party of Obama was white supremacist related to KKK, and the party of Trump was Lincoln's which freed the slaves of the south. That sounds backwards, doesn't it? It's as if politics wasn't made of two opposing opinions, but of hundreds. (edit: snowwrestler above said it better, parties are not elected, are not part of the constitution and there's nothing inherently wrong or dis

Am I wrong in attributing/connecting most of Americas problems with its flawed constitution/democratic system? The first version of something is rarely the best version, and while the US constitution contained a lot of fantastic elements and freedoms that every educated American knows about, it also contained a democratic system (first past the post/two party system) that is mathematically bound to breed divisiveness. [1] [2] Since the American system forces people into two camps/parties based on ideology instead of the delivered results, the results suffer while the ideological conflict is enhanced. [1] [this video] [2] [link]

Some tweaks I'd make: Corporate structure: [link] Electoral system: What we have now - [this video] Range voting - [link] Alternative vote - [link] Single transferrable vote - [link] Marx wrote about the theory of societal evolution; That there are certain phases civilization must pass through. The communism he wrote about would have to be very far down the road, 100+ years (IMO). This does not mean people sit back and do nothing, we still would have to work towards it. (Most) Capitalists profit from the status quo, and work to keep in place systems to maintain their spot in the hierarchy. Thus the antiquated electoral system in the USA, and the top heavy power/pay structures of business. TL;DR: give the average person more of a say/choice in the world they live in (politics/workplace), and they will find their way forward. (IMO)

> Congress is paralyzed for some reason having to do with the new atmosphere of microsecond attention span and single-issue voting. I'd blame First Past the Post voting. [1] It's mathematically always going to lead to a stagnant two party system. When people are forced to vote against someone they don't want in office, representatives have no incentive to be anything other than "not #otherside". There is also no longer a reason to have voting in primaries at different times for different states. Having it setup this way means the results are influenced by various special interests (and not just through the media). [1] [this video] Sorry if this comment was to political in nature for HN.

I'll start off with my prototype: [link] Anyone into electoral methods or game theory? If you've ever watched CGP Grey's videos on electoral methods or seen Nicky Case's *To Build a Better Ballot*,[1] it's very much in the spirit of that. It's mostly a toy that will run a single election in a large number of different electoral methods. Currently I've implemented ~26 different electoral methods which is pretty neat. However, I've shied away from the methods that voting theory nerds love the most: Condorcet methods. I've implemented Copeland (although there's a mistake I haven't fixed yet) as well as Kemeny Young. However, Kemeny Young is implemented in the most brute force way possible and is O(n!) right now. Mostly I think I'm just looking for people with a math/game-theory background that would be interested in helping out, but I'm open to anyone interested. I know there's a lot of optimizations I could make to the Kemeny Young algorithm, but I've been hesitant to do so because I can't find the right theorems to make sure certain assumptions are true. For example, I'm quite sure that a subset of weak Condorcet winners would be at the front of the winning path, but I haven't found a textbook that's stated this explicitly and it's been a long time since college so I'm kinda iffy on proving it to myself. I also don't think having to learn the proof everytime just to make sure my assumptions are mathematically sound is the best way to develop such a tool. Thanks It's all open-s

To anyone sad about this: The alternative offered was Kamala Harris. Thanks DNC. First-past-the-post voting practically guarantees a two party system emerges over time: [this video] The US gov has been worn way at for decades by unscrupulous people seeking power and made so unpleasant to work in that few young people want to go into political leadership - and those that do don’t get far enough to have impact (eg. Buttigieg).. hence, old ass presidents. Truly impactful movers and shakers have easy access to capital in the US, can keep their companies and lives private, and achieve a very comfortable life. Why would anyone choose politics over that? Finally, the US gov system of checks and balances was designed assuming it could be perfected incrementally, but long-lived systems also need cycles of renewal - think of a forest. That design flaw is showing up now as key systems are getting cracked open by opportunists.