Elections in various countries

[mèþru]

A repeat of 2014 would have been impossible, but he could have done a much more subdued retaliation than what he went with. The situation may have also scared some undecided voters into voting for the right because of their association with "strong security"

[Raphael]

Over in Algeria, Bouteflika has resigned.

[mèþru]

I've decided to be happy about the prime minister selection process in Israel. Regardless of which of the top two contenders win, he will be corrupt, power-hungry and detrimental to peace. I can at least take joy that he prevented the other guy from winning; the other one would be horrible and must be kept out of office!

[tiramisu]

.

[tiramisu]

.

[Raphael]

Didn't someone once state that there is no perfect electoral system, because any possible one will have some downsides that others won't have?

[mèþru]

Netanyahu seems to consistently do better in polling for preferred prime minister though

[tiramisu]

.

[Salmoneus]

Didn't someone once state that there is no perfect electoral system, because any possible one will have some downsides that others won't have?

Many people. The typical citation here is Arrow's Impossibility Theorem, which proves this mathematically, although that only applies to ranked voting (i.e. all voting systems in use in practice). A more general theorem along the same lines is Gibbard-Satterthwaite, which applies to both ranked and cardinal voting (i.e. all voting systems). There are also a number of similar conclusions along similar lines, like the Condorcet paradox (which proves that an electorate all individually holding rational, transitive, objectively resolvable preferences can collectively hold irrational, intransitive preferences that canot be objectively resolved*).

In essence, it's like map projections. You cannot project a spherical body onto a two-dimensional map without distortions. It's impossible. Likewise, you cannot project collective preferences in all their complexity into a simple electoral outcome without distortions.


*to explain that a bit better:

More: show

Take a rational individual, acting rationally, with time to consider, with a fixed store of information. Give them options A, B and C.
If you ask them to select a favourite option, you can do it in four different ways:
a) let them choose between A and B. Then let them choose between that winner and C;
b) let them choose between A and C, then let them choose between that winner and B;
c) let them choose between B and C, then let them choose between that winner and A;
d) give them A, B and C and ask them to pick their favourite.

Now, with this rational individual, all four methods will yield the same answer. If it doesn't, they're answering irrationally - probably because their preferences are changing as you ask them the questions, because they haven't really come to a settled, considered conclusion yet.

This is because rational preferences are transitive: if you prefer A to B, and B to C, you also prefer A to C. As a result, it doesn't matter which of the above methods you use to pick a winner - the favourite is in that sense objective. [technically, absolute]

However, with groups of rational individuals, this need not be the case. Group preferences can be cyclic, and hence intransitive: a group can prefer A to B, B to C, and yet also C to A. Therefore, with groups, the four different methods can yield different results. That means that the favourite is not objective [absolute] - instead, it's relative to the method of election (specifically in this case the order of questions asked). Which means that in some cases, the winner of the election will be determined by the arbitrary (or prejudiced) selection of question order.

There are ways to make that arbitrariness non-obvious. But what Arrow, Gibbard and Satterthwaite showed is that, in essence, it's impossible to deal with this fundamental irrationality in a way that is not inherently unfair.

[mèþru]

Another problem is that not everyone wants the same things to be emphasised by a voting system.

[Raphael]

Ah, Arrow. I'm sure I had heard of the idea somewhere, but couldn't remember the name or the details. Thank you!

[mèþru]

A great article on the Israeli elections: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 68,00.html

[tiramisu]

.

[mèþru]

Bibi won.
Even before the results are finished, Gantz doesn't have a path to make a majority coalition.

[Salmoneus]

So even when he's being prosecuted for his corruption and campaigns on a platform of annexing the Sudatenland*, he can STILL get elected. Trump should be taking notes...



*a handy tip people can use to determine whether they're evil or not. Do you promise to annex places? If so, you're evil. It's like the skulls-on-hats thing.

[mèþru]

I wouldn't say that; although it doesn't apply in this situation, sometimes an annexation is actually wanted, like the annexation of Texas.

[Vijay]

I think you could argue that Americans wanted Texas to be part of the US even before the Texas Revolution and that that was evil.

EDIT: I think you could also argue that the fact that Texans wanted to be annexed doesn't mean the annexation wasn't evil anyway, given that it finally happened under a president who went on to basically steal half of Mexico.

[Salmoneus]

Well, my comment was obviously a joke, based on the fact that "annex" is (other than in this case) only ever commonly used as a term of moral opprobrium. So, we say Russia 'annexed' the Crimea, they say they 'liberated' it.

Using annexation in a more technical sense, yes, there are cases like the annexation of Crimea or the annexation of Texas or the annexation of the Sudatenland, where the move may have been supported by the majority of residents. But even in those cases, if someone's calling it an annexation that generally indicates that it's in some way horrible morally controversial.

In the case of Texas, issues include:
- the annexation was only the final recognition of a process of rapid colonial expansion that took power from the Spanish settlers and gave it to the immigrants and their American backers
- the annexation was legally speaking the invasion of a sovereign nation, as Texas had not been granted independence by Mexico and its independence was not recognised internationally; specifically, it was an excuse to put American troops into an ongoing civil war in Mexico, and invading a country in order to aid a rebel faction in a civil war is generally frowned upon
- the annexation was a violation of international law
- the annexation was at least in part only an excuse to provoke a wider war of conquest against Mexico
- the annexation exploited the Texans. Yes, Texas wanted the annexation - but that was in large part because of the dire situation they found themselves in due to the war and the lack of international recognition. America chose to offer subjugation to the US as the only alternative to subjugation by Mexico, seizing the moment of their greatest need to advance its own interests
- the annexation was officially motivated by the desire to prevent the Texans emancipating slaves, and invading a neighbouring country to protect the institution of slavery is generally seen as... well, a bit skulls-on-hats-y.


Without the slavery issue, what America "should" (morally) have done would have been to support Texas in securing international recognition (rather than acting to forestall negotiations with, eg, Britain) and safeguarded its independence from Mexico by promising aid in the event of a fresh Mexican invasion (i.e. made it a protectorate), in order to allow Texas to function as an independent state. It should have then at least have endeavoured to secure formal recognition of independence from Mexico. Only after Texas had been truly independent for a reasonable period of time and had found an economic and diplomatic equilibrium should the Texans have been given a choice between that equilibrium and voluntary accession.

Otherwise it's like... well, offering to help an abused wife escape from her husband, on the proviso that she immediately marry you instead. Sure, her decision to marry you may be "voluntary", given the alternatives, but the whole point is that you could have given her other alternatives.


And then there's the slavery. What to do with "popular self-determination" when 80% of the public want something, but only so that they will be able to continue to enslave and brutalise the other 20% is indeed kind of a tricky question for theorists of democracy.

[tiramisu]

.

[mèþru]

Most who want specifically the pre-1967 borders mainly don't consider the land rightfully theirs. Israeli opinion is very, very divided. Also, many people who vote for Likud favour a two state solution even as the party moves closer and closer to a complete rejection of any two-state solution.

It's not so much Palestinians are partners for peace or not - peace is made between governments, not people. Practically no one outside fringe politics sees Hamas as a partner, and Abbas is perceived by many Israelis as an adversary who only pretends to be committed to peace with Israel.