Thanks for writing this; I find approval voting an interesting and intuitively attractive system (and have used it in the past).
I was surprised by the table you show about the impacts of approval voting on the democratic candidate selection. I generally think of approval voting as supporting moderate candidates, as you mention, but here it seems to be favouring the most extreme (Warren, Sanders) over the more moderate (Biden) - though perhaps I have misinterpreted the chart.
This makes me worry that increasing the ‘democraticness’ of elections might lead to worse outcomes. You sort of alude to this concern in the FAQ, but move over it pretty quickly. There are in fact many cases where it is I think relatively common to think that reducing ‘democraticness’ is a good move:
Independent central banks are much more competent, credible and technocratic than having elected politicians control the money supply. I’m not really aware of anyone who thinks this move was a bad idea.
Elected judges are often viewed as far more populist and generally lower quality than appointed ones.
Elected utility commissions are less competent than appointed ones (though perhaps I am biased on this issue).
Referendums and ballot initiatives are often blamed as part of the cause for the decline in Californian governance.
Elected vs Appointed isn’t exactly the same as FPTP vs Approval Voting, but it seems like they have similar aspects.
Garrett Jones has a book on this. It’s only on pre-order at the moment, but you can read Hanson’s comments here.
On the moderate component, it’s important to note a couple things: (1) moderate can change depending on what the population is and (2) sometimes we get a distorted view of what moderate is through the media.
Here, we’re looking at a subgroup—people registered as democrats. So the population is a bit different. One of the platforms that Warren and Sanders are similar on that separate them from Biden is Medicare for All. It tends to poll rather well, particularly among democrats despite it being considered more extreme by the media.
On the democracy not always being good component, I touched on this a little elsewhere with a kind of “what else?” type reply. But perhaps, as you mentioned, there are some positions that are best not elected. I would take less issue with positions best not elected but more issue with positions elected badly (ex// FPTP).
Independent central banks are much more competent, credible and technocratic than having elected politicians control the money supply. I’m not really aware of anyone who thinks this move was a bad idea.
Ron Paul and a large fraction of American internet libertarians believe in the badness of technocratic central banks quite strongly[1], though I agree that this is not a mainstream (or even minority) position among academics or other people I trust on economic issues.
He opposes the Fed, but does he want interest rates set by politicians? My understanding is he wanted a return to the gold standard, where there is less need to directly control the money supply—the only question is whether you insist on 100% backing or accept a lower ratio, but once that is set growth in the money supply is determined by the volume of physical gold.
Similarly bitcoin people oppose the Fed, but not because they want politicians in charge—they have another external rule (e.g. fixed max quantity) that reduces democratic discretion.
Thanks for writing this; I find approval voting an interesting and intuitively attractive system (and have used it in the past).
I was surprised by the table you show about the impacts of approval voting on the democratic candidate selection. I generally think of approval voting as supporting moderate candidates, as you mention, but here it seems to be favouring the most extreme (Warren, Sanders) over the more moderate (Biden) - though perhaps I have misinterpreted the chart.
This makes me worry that increasing the ‘democraticness’ of elections might lead to worse outcomes. You sort of alude to this concern in the FAQ, but move over it pretty quickly. There are in fact many cases where it is I think relatively common to think that reducing ‘democraticness’ is a good move:
Independent central banks are much more competent, credible and technocratic than having elected politicians control the money supply. I’m not really aware of anyone who thinks this move was a bad idea.
Elected judges are often viewed as far more populist and generally lower quality than appointed ones.
Elected utility commissions are less competent than appointed ones (though perhaps I am biased on this issue).
Referendums and ballot initiatives are often blamed as part of the cause for the decline in Californian governance.
Elected vs Appointed isn’t exactly the same as FPTP vs Approval Voting, but it seems like they have similar aspects.
Garrett Jones has a book on this. It’s only on pre-order at the moment, but you can read Hanson’s comments here.
Hi Larks,
On the moderate component, it’s important to note a couple things: (1) moderate can change depending on what the population is and (2) sometimes we get a distorted view of what moderate is through the media.
Here, we’re looking at a subgroup—people registered as democrats. So the population is a bit different. One of the platforms that Warren and Sanders are similar on that separate them from Biden is Medicare for All. It tends to poll rather well, particularly among democrats despite it being considered more extreme by the media.
On the democracy not always being good component, I touched on this a little elsewhere with a kind of “what else?” type reply. But perhaps, as you mentioned, there are some positions that are best not elected. I would take less issue with positions best not elected but more issue with positions elected badly (ex// FPTP).
Ron Paul and a large fraction of American internet libertarians believe in the badness of technocratic central banks quite strongly[1], though I agree that this is not a mainstream (or even minority) position among academics or other people I trust on economic issues.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#Economic
He opposes the Fed, but does he want interest rates set by politicians? My understanding is he wanted a return to the gold standard, where there is less need to directly control the money supply—the only question is whether you insist on 100% backing or accept a lower ratio, but once that is set growth in the money supply is determined by the volume of physical gold.
Similarly bitcoin people oppose the Fed, but not because they want politicians in charge—they have another external rule (e.g. fixed max quantity) that reduces democratic discretion.
Maybe this discussion is a bit tangential to The Center for Election Science’s fund-raising.