Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Mayor For Fall River Ousted And Re-Elected At Same Time
https:/
It's hard to know what to make of this story beyond inevitably pointing out the inherent flaw in any first-past-the-post electoral system. The story is pretty simple: the voters were asked two questions, at the same time: do you want the old mayor to remain in office? The overwhelming answer was no. The second question was, who should be the new mayor? Nothing stopping the old one from running again, the answer was... the mayor the town had just overwhelmingly rejected.
The Spoiler Effect demonstrated as clearly as is possible.
It's hard to know what to make of this story beyond inevitably pointing out the inherent flaw in any first-past-the-post electoral system. The story is pretty simple: the voters were asked two questions, at the same time: do you want the old mayor to remain in office? The overwhelming answer was no. The second question was, who should be the new mayor? Nothing stopping the old one from running again, the answer was... the mayor the town had just overwhelmingly rejected.
The Spoiler Effect demonstrated as clearly as is possible.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by jim360. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Q1 returns the answer "we don't want him".
Q2 returns the answer "but he's still better than the other *** on offer".
Where's the contradiction?
PS: there's a famous paradox explaining how a transferrable vote(?) system can ssip everyone off (French political philosopher 19th century?). But not so famous that I can remember it.
Q2 returns the answer "but he's still better than the other *** on offer".
Where's the contradiction?
PS: there's a famous paradox explaining how a transferrable vote(?) system can ssip everyone off (French political philosopher 19th century?). But not so famous that I can remember it.
Probably related to Condorcet. Indeed this is a standard vote-related paradox, but it is all the same a failure of FPTP systems that such a result can happen so starkly and clearly.
Other solutions are clearly possible that preserve FPTP. It could have been understood that the incumbent was unable to run having been ousted, for example. But all the same, it is a clear failure of democracy that the people can be asked the same question, in two different ways, and be able to deliver exactly contradictory answers.
Other solutions are clearly possible that preserve FPTP. It could have been understood that the incumbent was unable to run having been ousted, for example. But all the same, it is a clear failure of democracy that the people can be asked the same question, in two different ways, and be able to deliver exactly contradictory answers.
But he was only re-elected on 35% of the vote. The vast majority of voters wanted someone else.
Jim's absolutely right. This is FPTP at its worst. A clear majority wanted him gone (and for good reason it seems), but the minority who voted to keep him in the first place ended up winning because the subsequent election was held under a ridiculous system where plurality wins rather than majority.
Jim's absolutely right. This is FPTP at its worst. A clear majority wanted him gone (and for good reason it seems), but the minority who voted to keep him in the first place ended up winning because the subsequent election was held under a ridiculous system where plurality wins rather than majority.
The alternative certainly isn't "PR", though. There are multitudes of other voting systems that can resolve this specific anomaly, which is that the "Condorcet loser" -- that is, the person who would have lost every head-to-head race against just one other candidate -- has won an election with three or more people in instead.
To describe this as "absolutely fine" seems, therefore, fairly twisted. Even among traditional FPTP advocates it's usually accepted that the system is flawed as soon as there is a third person involved. I can understand if people argue that the flaws are tolerable for fear of some even worse system, although again it's not a case of FPTP or PR: there are all manner of legitimate electoral systems that are neither of these. I can't, however, understand claiming that the flaw doesn't exist.
To describe this as "absolutely fine" seems, therefore, fairly twisted. Even among traditional FPTP advocates it's usually accepted that the system is flawed as soon as there is a third person involved. I can understand if people argue that the flaws are tolerable for fear of some even worse system, although again it's not a case of FPTP or PR: there are all manner of legitimate electoral systems that are neither of these. I can't, however, understand claiming that the flaw doesn't exist.
The first vote implicitly shows that he would have, as it is clear that a majority in the town wanted him gone independent of who would then replace him. It's almost certain that the second-placed candidate, at least, would have beaten our incumbent in a head-to-head battle.
The mathematical theory behind such voting anomalies is well-established, and I'd encourage you to read into it at some point. But for the time being it should be clear that the two votes, head at the same time, are inconsistent with each other. If the town wants a particular person to go, then the electoral system should be able to reflect that. It very clearly did not in this case.
To tie it in with Brexit, imagine if the people had been asked two questions on June 23rd: firstly whether they wanted to leave, and secondly which of several futures they wanted to pursue. It is safe in that case to say that there would have been at least *some* level of division amongst the Leave voters, and enough, too, to squeeze it out of contention as compared to Remain. In that case we would have remained because of the lack of agreement among *how* to leave, and the question would have been considered dead.
In both cases, granted, one way around it is to insist that the second question can only be asked assuming that the "incumbent" decision must be excluded, or perhaps there must be a delay between the two questions being asked, so that the "incumbent" supporters are invited to reconsider their vote in light of defeat. So this particular vote in Fall River is also flawed in ways beyond merely using an FPTP system. But the point I am making is that the two votes could well have been held at the same time, and not delivered such a stark contradiction within other voting systems, that don't belong to PR but instead are "preferential" voting systems.
The mathematical theory behind such voting anomalies is well-established, and I'd encourage you to read into it at some point. But for the time being it should be clear that the two votes, head at the same time, are inconsistent with each other. If the town wants a particular person to go, then the electoral system should be able to reflect that. It very clearly did not in this case.
To tie it in with Brexit, imagine if the people had been asked two questions on June 23rd: firstly whether they wanted to leave, and secondly which of several futures they wanted to pursue. It is safe in that case to say that there would have been at least *some* level of division amongst the Leave voters, and enough, too, to squeeze it out of contention as compared to Remain. In that case we would have remained because of the lack of agreement among *how* to leave, and the question would have been considered dead.
In both cases, granted, one way around it is to insist that the second question can only be asked assuming that the "incumbent" decision must be excluded, or perhaps there must be a delay between the two questions being asked, so that the "incumbent" supporters are invited to reconsider their vote in light of defeat. So this particular vote in Fall River is also flawed in ways beyond merely using an FPTP system. But the point I am making is that the two votes could well have been held at the same time, and not delivered such a stark contradiction within other voting systems, that don't belong to PR but instead are "preferential" voting systems.
the condorcet method would have needed a ranking system as per AV, it shows he was no 1 choice for 35%, you cannot guarantee that he would not have picked up enough second choices etc eg under AV or even the Kemeny Young method of counting. Condorcet can throw up all sorts of paradoxes and anomolies when employed.
At this point aren't you moving rather into conjecture, and about a very specific incident at that?
And, even without that, it's still missing the point. Sure, it might be the case after all that even under a preferential system, our incumbent here may have ended up winning. But, if he did, then there would have been far less reason to quibble about the result, because there would have been no ambiguity, no reason to moan about the "Spoiler Effect", and so on. As it is, 60% of the town's voters wanted him out, but because they couldn't quite agree on who to replace him with he ended up back in after all. Other systems may well have led to the same result, but it is unlikely that a fifth of the 60% would have wanted him back in after all (as would be required under preferential systems); and, even if it did happen, would it not be better to find out explicitly if this had been the case?
And, even without that, it's still missing the point. Sure, it might be the case after all that even under a preferential system, our incumbent here may have ended up winning. But, if he did, then there would have been far less reason to quibble about the result, because there would have been no ambiguity, no reason to moan about the "Spoiler Effect", and so on. As it is, 60% of the town's voters wanted him out, but because they couldn't quite agree on who to replace him with he ended up back in after all. Other systems may well have led to the same result, but it is unlikely that a fifth of the 60% would have wanted him back in after all (as would be required under preferential systems); and, even if it did happen, would it not be better to find out explicitly if this had been the case?
Latest Posts
Sir Keir Starmer Under, Fresh...
News1 min ago
Mass Job Losses In The Retail Sector...
News3 mins ago
Crosswords6 mins ago
ChatterBank15 mins ago
News15 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.