SODA voting (Simple Optionally-Delegated Approval): Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
imported>Homunq No edit summary |
imported>Homunq |
||
| Line 79: | Line 79: | ||
Here are the pitches one could make. Both of those pitches are feeding on the sicknesses inherent in a two-party duopoly. But that doesn't mean that SODA would feed those sicknesses or make them worse; I'm just using those sicknesses to make an argument that I think is fully justified. Remember, SODA is fully compatible with a multiparty world; in fact, as I've argued, it is in an important sense more Condorcet compliant than a Condorcet system. |
Here are the pitches one could make. Both of those pitches are feeding on the sicknesses inherent in a two-party duopoly. But that doesn't mean that SODA would feed those sicknesses or make them worse; I'm just using those sicknesses to make an argument that I think is fully justified. Remember, SODA is fully compatible with a multiparty world; in fact, as I've argued, it is in an important sense more Condorcet compliant than a Condorcet system. |
||
=== For a Democrat or Republican === |
=== For a politician (Democrat or Republican) === |
||
So, why is SODA compatible with two parties? Here's the kind of pitch you could make to a Republican or Democrat. Although I'd definitely include less disingenuous trash talk about other good systems or about third parties or independents, I'm including it here to show the kind of arguments that you could make: |
So, why is SODA compatible with two parties? Here's the kind of pitch you could make to a Republican or Democrat. Although I'd definitely include less disingenuous trash talk about other good systems or about third parties or independents, I'm including it here to show the kind of arguments that you could make: |
||