Negative voting

It's election year in my country and we'll be choosing our next president through the traditional two-round system.

The two major contenders this year have both very high rejection in part of the electorate, and this rejection is usually manifested by supporting the candidate which is most likely to defeat the rejected candidate in the second round.

I wish it was possible for voters to manifest their disapproval more directly, through some kind of negative voting schema. For example, if candidate A gets 50 votes for and 30 agains (net 20), Candidate B gets 40 votes for and 10 against (net 30) and candidate C gets 30 votes for and 5 (net 25) against, the second round would be against B and C. Since the second round is a binary option, negative votes count exactly the same as a vote for the opponent, so negative voting wouldn't be necessary.

I know that there's an infinite number of potential voting schemas, and not any of them is perfect, but I believe that simplicity is a must for any system that invites participation from all of society and just voting against someone is a lot simpler than ranking, or quadratic votes or whatever.

While we're at it, maybe we could improve somewhat the fact that the power is too concentrated in the hands of the President: maybe a 55/45 victory could give less power to the President (versus, say, Congress), while a 90/10 landslide would give them broader powers and less checks. Let's ignora for a while the risk of unreliable elections: even though I live in a(n ever) developing country, I'm fairly confident in the trustworthiness of our elections, so not too worried about this for now.

Thoughts?


P.S.: After a quick googling, there seems to be a Taiwan-based group for this kind of voting and Disapproval Voting is the name of a related, but different system.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

An interview with Steve Wozniak by Jessica Livingston cured my AI anxiety

Note: there's no hidden knowledge contained in this post, it's just a reflection on how reading someone's reaction to an analogous situation changed my outlook Like everyone who works in an information job, I have been worried these last few months about how AI would impact my place in the labor force in the coming decade. Even though I didn't get to the depressed extremes we've been seeing on the Internet, I could not shake off the feeling that what I could offer to a company - no, to the whole economy, which just means "other people" - would get a lot less valuable. Come mid January, I wast taking a week off and had taken to read a few books since I read so little non-technical content on a day to day basis. One of these books was "Founders at work" by author and YC co-founder Jessica Livingston. The book is a series of interviews conducted by Jessica with the founders of some of the most important tech companies - sometimes specific products -
Read more

What if regular exercise is the best cognitive exercise?

File this under highly speculative. I’m sure there is better research on this topic than this writing This past week, for no obvious reason, I considered a few thoughts at the same time: Exercise is supposedly one of the best anti-aging “drugs”, and also highly effective (relatively speaking) against cognitive decline There’s this vague idea that after you become “professionally inactive”, you accelerate your cognitive decline To avoid cognitive decline, one must keep “exercising the brain”, so the incentive for seniors to have hobbies, do crosswords, sudoku, etc Now, from this point it seems that I’d go to a very commonplace conclusion about how exercising is probably better than sudoku or something, and to be frank that’s exactly where I’m going. But another two things crossed my mind at the same time: Recent advances in AI, and less recent advances in computing in general showed that a lot of the things we consider “cognitively hard” - from symbolic manipulation to arithmetic, “draw
Read more

Ozymandias

Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair! The common interpretation of the poem is that we're supposed to appreciate the irony of the self-styled king of kings' works not being around anymore. Time, like sand, eventually wears everything out. But I always found it funny that the pharaoh is addressing "ye Mighty,". Is it out of respect or irony that Ramesses II addresses his non-peers this way? The pharaoh not-so gently cues them to despair, so I don't suppose it's out of respect. But the irony is also a bit uncalled for: he already drove the point home about who's in charge with his title. Why "ye Mighty," then? Unless it's not supposed to be ironic, but earnest. Maybe Shelley isn't picturing a cocky, hubristic ruler, but a wise one. He was, after all, one of the most successful pharaohs of Egypt, in both war and diplomacy. Maybe the pharaoh is trying to send an important message to those who happen upon his works: "It doesn't m
Read more