Talk:Center squeeze: Difference between revisions
→"Liberal" and "Conservative": new section
No edit summary |
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) (→"Liberal" and "Conservative": new section) |
||
Line 10:
--[[User:Marcosb|Marcosb]] ([[User talk:Marcosb|talk]]) 19:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
== "Liberal" and "Conservative" ==
In section [[Center_squeeze#Effect_of_strategy]], I would suggest not using real party/ideology names like "Liberal" or "Conservative", as this will often be misunderstood as advocating in favor of a "Centrist" or moderate winner. (FairVote conflates these concepts on https://fairvote.org/why-the-condorcet-criterion-is-less-important-than-it-seems/ when they say "Condorcet winners are centrist by nature, regardless of the preferences of the electorate" and "choosing the centrist candidate every time is just falling into the fallacy of the middle ground".)
Center-squeeze is bad because it elects poor representatives, not because it elects non-centrists on some absolute spectrum. If the voters are all pro-women's suffrage extremists and anti-prohibition extremists, then a good voting system that doesn't suffer from "center-squeeze" would elect a pro-suffrage and anti-prohibition candidate, not someone who is centrist on both issues. It's an unfortunate name, we should try not to reinforce this misconception. — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 02:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
| |||