Why is it that approval ratings aren't used as the method of electing politicians?
Why is it that approval ratings aren't used as the method of electing politicians?
It's just a simple yes or no, whether you think at least one or more of the candidates on your ballot list shares a lot of your concerns, beliefs, et values to at least vote for them
If you don't approve any of them, just don't mark them, and write down "I don't like any of these candidates" as a reason
I don't like "first past the post" for this reason... it just perpetuates the idea of "spoiled" votes...
Because that would be democracy, silly. Capitalists can't allow that
because the horse race serves the interests of the ruling class
I was once at a concert, and I saw Bernie Sanders there and he was Skanking hard to some Kill Lincoln, and that's why I voted for him in 2016.
I would just prefer ultra short terms. Like everyone gets 1 year at a time to a maximum of like IDK 6-10 times? Short enough that you don't have campaigning time if you're on the job, but having a good voting track record is its own good campaign. Literally just have to put out messages that say what you have actually voted for and against.
Better yet, a liquid representation democracy would be the best way to go: Everyone represents themselves, but if you're too busy to constantly participate in all the elections you want to, you can "give" your vote to a representative and you can remove your vote from them any time. Lots of possible pitfalls, but we've never tried it before, so just as many hypotheticals that can go right, too.
Because there is no voting method that is better than other methods. In this method, voters who only choose their favorite candidate are rewarded for not approving of more than one candidate. So you're just back to first pst the post, or some weird variation of it with slightly different outcomes that nobody could really say is "better" or "worse" (because you can't determine "goodness" based on a bunch of stats nerd crap). Oppose electoral fetishism!
Because there is no voting method that is better than other methods. In this method, voters who only choose their favorite candidate are rewarded for not approving of more than one candidate
How are they rewarded, in any way?
Oppose electoral fetishism!
Since when did I campaign a whole lot about electoral fetishism?... I know reformism, let alone electoral reformism on its own, isn't sufficient to rock the rotten system, but as far as I can tell, it's something to break the rhythm of western democracy
Besides, didn't the USSR use approval ratings, to some degree, for electing municipal and provincial officials?
From this youtube video "They hate the Soviets for THIS." by Держать Курс
Vtg-ohbNYiI
“It can be said that the vote was only the final part of a complex electoral process within the framework of Soviet democracy. The procedure for selecting the most worthy candidates was based on the requirements that were put forward to potential candidates, in turn, the competition was conducted not for votes, but for a certain symbolic capital.
The person who most corresponded to the ideal type of deputy, within the field of Soviet politics, received approval from both the power institutions and the population... Chelyabinsk regional Committee noted that "some city and district committees of the party, primary party organization didn't pay enough attention to the selection of individual candidates, in advance, without knowing the attitude of the staff to the recommended comrades...".
A necessary requirement for the candidates was the approval of groups, that is, they are, in fact, chose to election, and the polling day just officially confirmed their choice.”
It turns out that in the parliament you can not nominate candidates and have to choose from ready-made options. And with the Soviets, you can nominate candidates, but there will be only one candidate in the election, who was previously chosen by you. That's all.
How are they rewarded, in any way?
Only voting for your favorite gives the other candidates less approval, which swings the vote towards the candidate who has voters who are the most "selective". Plus even if that isn't the case, who's to say the person who wins is the best and not just the most status quo or calculated politician?
something to break the rhythm of western democracy
They already have something better than single-member voting districts in "western democracy": direct proportional representation. It clearly doesn't make much difference.
use approval ratings, to some degree, for electing municipal and provincial officials?
Barack Obama has a 63% approval rating. I guess you saud local politicians but I bet you can find similar examples.
I think you underestimate the level to which propaganda and ruling class maneuvering determines who has power, and overestimate the amount that elections matter, which are in fact glorified polls.
We all saw how it took them just a couple days to completely crush Bernie Sanders' last election campaign.
I'm not against elections, but they have to serve a specific pupose and not just exist for the ceremony. Maybe elections they have in Cuba or China work better if it's just a neighborhood voting for a leader, but idk.
There are some really cool electoral methods that are used in some niche situations (e.g. the Schulze method). Obviously wouldn't work to elect a government, since that would not massively benefit the ruling class as the current methods do.
Any method with the explicit goal of electing the “Condorcet winner” is lib shit. Condorcet = least hated = most bland centrist.
Approval voting by definition gives you the most liked candidate instead of the least hated.
Makes sense, thanks!
The dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
Ah well, that's a good point....
