jimrandomh comments on Vote Qualifications, Not Issues - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (185)
The reaction to this post has been completely different than what I expected, and this theory seems to explain it. An earlier, unfinished draft got better feedback - perhaps the difference is the list of examples at the end, priming thoughts of disliked candidates (whichever side of the issue those candidates took)?
I think I'll take that out. I'm editing this paragraph
to instead say
That would be better; I think the phrase "with intelligent people on both sides" especially will allow people to exclude their pet issue by thinking that everyone on the other side is stupid.
I don't think it fully solves the problem, though I think combining it with the idea of voting for parties makes it much more sensible.
As Vladimir M points out we really don't elect people to directly exercise power. Popular issues really only are pursued when a sympathetic party has a supermajority (at least in the US). But even if that is a more useful political metaphor, selecting from two parties which both have serious flaws is unlikely to create a strong signal for rationality.
While your argument is certainly valid and interesting in terms of having political arguments I don't think it's sensible to use for actual voting.