Follow Island in the Net on WordPress.com

Democracy and Quadratic Voting

<p>Love Park, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania —</p><p>FujiFilm X-T2 + XF16-55mmF2.8 R LM WR @ (16 mm, f/5.6, ISO200), © Khürt L. Williams</p>

Democracy may be flawed (the USA is a Republic not a direct democracy like the UK) but I prefer a voting system that I can explain to an 8-year-old. A system for voting that is based on a mathematical model that a select few - the people who designed it - can understand seems dangerous.

Author: Khürt Williams

human being, information security architect, avid photographer, nature lover, F1 fanatic, drinker of beer.

2 thoughts on “Democracy and Quadratic Voting”

  1. bikejourno says:
    22nd April 2019 at 11:35 AM

    @khurtwilliams The main problem are two-party systems that vote in single-mandate districts by a strict first-past-the-post. This excludes or at least marginalizes many non-mainstream and minority movements and ideas from any influence on how a country is governed and is deeply undemocratic as such. Time for proportional voting and a more diverse political landscape. In the US and in Great Britain.

    1. Khürt Williams says:
      22nd April 2019 at 2:35 PM

      Interesting. If you are correct, that would explain why Republican and Green Party voters in my state - people like myself - feel like we can't be heard in our Always Blue Democrat state of New Jersey. I may not bother voting in the next US Presidential election. I dislike the Democratic and Republican parties, so my vote is irrelevant to the outcome.

      I dislike the current two-party political system, but I do think the answer is fewer political parties; perhaps just one or better yet, none. I think the answer is the legal elimination of political parties. George Washington warned against them.

      The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

      Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

      It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country is subjected to the policy and will of another.

Comments are closed.

%d