Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GlyphGryph]

This one? Any other voting experiments and papers? I want to read them. But the experiments are about comparing "different voting method" instead of in the evolution system, what's the membership and policies changes toward 2 parties. I know plurality favor extreme policies, but it doesn't explain why there is only be 2 polarities, instead of more. Unless policies themselves are naturally positive correlation in 2 polarities already.

I'll see if I can't dig them up, it's been a while though. Basically though, plurality voting doesn't necessarily lead to polar opposites, it simply leads to two candidates in each individual election, because it encourages strategic voting:
If you have a candidate you like most, and one you like least, plurality voting means that voting for the one you like most can result in a victory for the one you like least (where it otherwise wouldn't matter). For an example, look at how many people blame Nader for causing Gore to lose the election.
It becomes now a question of "who do I most want to win", but "who do I most want to win out of the two most likely to win".

Now, this in and of itself quite obviously leads to a "two party system" for simple strategic stability reasons. It is not always the case, there are periods of transition (the US doesn't have the same two parties it started with, for example), but it means third parties are quickly relegated to the back row if it doesn't seem like they can win here and now - this makes them LESS likely to win in the future (or at least appear to, since they get less publicity, which is the same thing), which further diminishes their power. No one thinks they can win, because no one is willing to take the risk to vote for them and cause their LEAST favorite candidate to win.

Now, there are times when on a national level you can get a different situation because local favorites don't match national favorites, and have a bunch of two party elections making it look like a multi-party "system", and regional differences have long been the cause of new parties rising to and falling from dominance. However, a national election (like president), often gives enough of a push to override that. Without the presidential election working the way it does, congressional elections would likely shake out differently and there might be a number of regional parties as well, but the forced "national party" association involved in voting for president does a lot to discourage that.

[counting]

I'll see if I can't dig them up, it's been a while though. Basically though, plurality voting doesn't necessarily lead to polar opposites, it simply leads to two candidates in each individual election, because it encourages strategic voting:
If you have a candidate you like most, and one you like least, plurality voting means that voting for the one you like most can result in a victory for the one you like least (where it otherwise wouldn't matter). For an example, look at how many people blame Nader for causing Gore to lose the election.
It becomes now a question of "who do I most want to win", but "who do I most want to win out of the two most likely to win".

Now, this in and of itself quite obviously leads to a "two party system" for simple strategic stability reasons. It is not always the case, there are periods of transition (the US doesn't have the same two parties it started with, for example), but it means third parties are quickly relegated to the back row if it doesn't seem like they can win here and now - this makes them LESS likely to win in the future (or at least appear to, since they get less publicity, which is the same thing), which further diminishes their power. No one thinks they can win, because no one is willing to take the risk to vote for them and cause their LEAST favorite candidate to win.

Now, there are times when on a national level you can get a different situation because local favorites don't match national favorites, and have a bunch of two party elections making it look like a multi-party "system", and regional differences have long been the cause of new parties rising to and falling from dominance. However, a national election (like president), often gives enough of a push to override that. Without the presidential election working the way it does, congressional elections would likely shake out differently and there might be a number of regional parties as well, but the forced "national party" association involved in voting for president does a lot to discourage that.

There is quite a few papers I dug up actually. I found a link to a NYU politics researcher using computer models to study quantitative social science.  He did some papers about how parties rise and fall causing effects in elections and parties.

There are 2 parts of this 2 party question. How do this evolved INTO 2 parties? And when it reaches 2 parties will it stabilized into 2 parties? Most of the discussions above only describe how 2 parties system stable and stay 2 parties, not how it evolved or started as 2 parties. And why 2 candidates only under a plurality election method. Is it natural tendency for plurality to become majority? Why not going further and make it simply required majority voting? The number of candidates is not limited in any of the election methods. I think there is an argument about the loser-united-front theory, but not really match what we observed. Two parties system seems evolved pretty quickly before it becomes the norm, but whether or not it's nature tendency or pure political influence make other countries also follow this model is debatable to me. (Many countries are off-shoot of British empires, it's root may greatly effect their political structures, and a lot European politics other than British influenced are not 2 parties.)

[DJ]

but it means third parties are quickly relegated to the back row

Unless the winner needs them to form a coalition government, and the third party can bring this government down at any time by stepping out of the coalition. And generally nobody ever wins 50% + votes in multi-party systems.

[counting]

There is something inherent in "party line" that makes the cooperation and coalition becomes difficult. It seems in some part of tendency the "party" is a sub-structure like you small-personal-circle, that everyone with in and without are clear distinctive. I think it plays a large part about how "parties" are formed.

Another issued is that the threshold problems. The 1/2 votes decision making process for a elective body is sometimes crucial about how parties are formed. If the threshold are lower to like 1/4, or raise to 2/3, will the electors working toward monopoly party or multi-parties system?

[Lord Shonus]

I'll see if I can't dig them up, it's been a while though. Basically though, plurality voting doesn't necessarily lead to polar opposites, it simply leads to two candidates in each individual election, because it encourages strategic voting:
If you have a candidate you like most, and one you like least, plurality voting means that voting for the one you like most can result in a victory for the one you like least (where it otherwise wouldn't matter). For an example, look at how many people blame Nader for causing Gore to lose the election.
It becomes now a question of "who do I most want to win", but "who do I most want to win out of the two most likely to win".

Now, this in and of itself quite obviously leads to a "two party system" for simple strategic stability reasons. It is not always the case, there are periods of transition (the US doesn't have the same two parties it started with, for example), but it means third parties are quickly relegated to the back row if it doesn't seem like they can win here and now - this makes them LESS likely to win in the future (or at least appear to, since they get less publicity, which is the same thing), which further diminishes their power. No one thinks they can win, because no one is willing to take the risk to vote for them and cause their LEAST favorite candidate to win.

Now, there are times when on a national level you can get a different situation because local favorites don't match national favorites, and have a bunch of two party elections making it look like a multi-party "system", and regional differences have long been the cause of new parties rising to and falling from dominance. However, a national election (like president), often gives enough of a push to override that. Without the presidential election working the way it does, congressional elections would likely shake out differently and there might be a number of regional parties as well, but the forced "national party" association involved in voting for president does a lot to discourage that.

There is quite a few papers I dug up actually. I found a link to a NYU politics researcher using computer models to study quantitative social science.  He did some papers about how parties rise and fall causing effects in elections and parties.

There are 2 parts of this 2 party question. How do this evolved INTO 2 parties? And when it reaches 2 parties will it stabilized into 2 parties? Most of the discussions above only describe how 2 parties system stable and stay 2 parties, not how it evolved or started as 2 parties. And why 2 candidates only under a plurality election method. Is it natural tendency for plurality to become majority? Why not going further and make it simply required majority voting? The number of candidates is not limited in any of the election methods. I think there is an argument about the loser-united-front theory, but not really match what we observed. Two parties system seems evolved pretty quickly before it becomes the norm, but whether or not it's nature tendency or pure political influence make other countries also follow this model is debatable to me. (Many countries are off-shoot of British empires, it's root may greatly effect their political structures, and a lot European politics other than British influenced are not 2 parties.)

I could explain this in detail, but I'd rather let some british guy with a youtube account do it for me, because I'm lazy. (actually, this is a pretty gooe explanation that I cannot top.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo&feature=relmfu

[counting]

I could explain this in detail, but I'd rather let some british guy with a youtube account do it for me, because I'm lazy. (actually, this is a pretty gooe explanation that I cannot top.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo&feature=relmfu

I think we already move pass the basic debate regarding plurality voting. It's good intro though for people who don't understand and have no clue of what voting and evolution process means, but it makes too many assumptions and didn't point out they are hypothesis and simple observation only. (Scientific processes are much more restricted and concrete than simple statement of opinions, math is not math, when you just blind them with its name). It's more of a rant for political system than actually trying to analysis it.

[GlyphGryph]

Unless the winner needs them to form a coalition government, and the third party can bring this government down at any time by stepping out of the coalition. And generally nobody ever wins 50% + votes in multi-party systems.

This doesn't apply the voting system we're talking about. In the US system, the concept of a "coalition" doesn't make any sense beyond saying the "parties" themselves are each coalitions.

Its basically a stability issue - 3 parties are somewhat likely to turn into 2 parties, 2 parties are significantly less likely to turn back. The first party to merge with the third party and secure their vote comes out as a winner, so both parties are likely to try to do that, giving the push towards a two party system. Once there are only two parties, assuming one represents you more than another, voting for a third party (instead of the one of the major two you prefer more) gives an advantage to the party you like least. While its not overwhelming, its definitely a disincentive to a third party gaining any real power. So the most stable position is a 2 party system where, if one party fails badly enough, they collapse and get replaced by someone else instead of there ever being a 'real' third party.

The exception as I mentioned is regional - the 2 party stability problem only actually occurs for local elections (and the presidential elections, which are always local). So what I'd be most interested in is why we don't have more local splits that defy the national level split. Is it he presidential election issue? Funding? The fact that until recently being a Democrat/Republican actually meant something completely different depending on what state you were from?

I'm actually surprised we don't have a single state that operates outside the DvsR paradigm sometimes.

[Lord Shonus]

I could explain this in detail, but I'd rather let some british guy with a youtube account do it for me, because I'm lazy. (actually, this is a pretty gooe explanation that I cannot top.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo&feature=relmfu

I think we already move pass the basic debate regarding plurality voting. It's good intro though for people who don't understand and have no clue of what voting and evolution process means, but it makes too many assumptions and didn't point out they are hypothesis and simple observation only. (Scientific processes are much more restricted and concrete than simple statement of opinions, math is not math, when you just blind them with its name). It's more of a rant for political system than actually trying to analysis it.

I agree with you on the limitations. As a basic intro into why things coalesce around 2 parties, it's still pretty decent.

[counting]

I could explain this in detail, but I'd rather let some british guy with a youtube account do it for me, because I'm lazy. (actually, this is a pretty gooe explanation that I cannot top.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo&feature=relmfu

I think we already move pass the basic debate regarding plurality voting. It's good intro though for people who don't understand and have no clue of what voting and evolution process means, but it makes too many assumptions and didn't point out they are hypothesis and simple observation only. (Scientific processes are much more restricted and concrete than simple statement of opinions, math is not math, when you just blind them with its name). It's more of a rant for political system than actually trying to analysis it.

I agree with you on the limitations. As a basic intro into why things coalesce around 2 parties, it's still pretty decent.

He got several other videos too. But only to an entry level. Still quite a hard work for I can tell, it's not easy to explain what quantitative social science to outsiders. Many things/assumptions must be left out. Although I do want more details about how to implemented the ABM (agent-based model) simulation, and running a simulation of my own. Since I am running ACE (agent-based computational economics) models myself. It's not that hard to adaptive it with different settings. But I don't know enough parameters to make the simulation solid. (Too many assumptions are within political studies doesn't make much sense to me )

[Phmcw]

I discussed the matter with someone who knew better than me (PDG of something, but he admitted that world's finance was far from being his field of expertise and that he was mostly telling me what financial press was saying). He told me that A) US tax on enterprises are not lower than Europe's average contrarily to popular opinion ,only the tax on salaries B) Standard and Poor lowered US rating due to the lack of political action and was mostly right C) that in his opinion, US economy was fucked for the ten years to come at te very least, and possibly for ever D)The financial system was flawed in majors way but he have no idea on how to fix it nor does anyone else.

Basically, your economy can't sustain your debt.

[counting]

Let's watch what would happen Monday morning in Asia market.

I guess is it would be a low opening and rise up. Since the fact that a major rating agency making the statement let the uncertainty a little less actually. But the other major rating agencies said nothing, means it still has some doubt about how serious it can be. In fact if all 3 agencies downgrade the credit rating may be better than just one. Investors at least have a union opinion to expect how much money they are willing to bet on the future. I guess is they are still waiting Q3 reports, and to see what's really been done at the end of the year. (Politicians said a lot of things, but maybe at the end of the year they may actually do something other than symbolic gestures.)

[counting]

Got the opening low part right, Let's see what will happen next. Keeping low or make another V shape will have to wait and see.

[mainiac]

How much of the stock market is being driven by the American rating downgrade and how much is being driven by the ongoing situation in Europe?  My guess is that the markets have already internalized the american political system and don't really care what S+P has to say.  But the European situation is a vicious cycle of Italian interest rate deterioration that could in theory be broken by political action from Germany and France or the IMF or something.  So every day that Germany and France and everyone else dont move to save Italy is another bad new day for Euro-zone stability.  My guess is that this gradually worsening situation in Europe is the real story behind the markets here.

[counting]

Hard to tell. Let's see what's the European market and U.S. market performance at the end of the day.
 
The Asian market is doom today. As bad as last last Monday. Mostly opening low, and stay low. The rest opening normal, and going down. Something more than pure financial reason. (Almost every single stock falls, feels more like the problem of faith.)

[mainiac]

Hard to tell. Let's see what's the European market and U.S. market performance at the end of the day.
 
The Asian market is doom today. As bad as last last Monday. Mostly opening low, and stay low. The rest opening normal, and going down. Something more than pure financial reason. (Almost every single stock falls, feels more like the problem of faith.)

That's not a very rigorous test.  There's a huge number of European stock traded in America and vice versa.  Furthermore, not even experts can make more then an educated guess at who would get hit by a theoretical Italian crises that could take many different forms.  How will the American and German banks get hit?  Does Italy stay on the Euro?  Do the next German elections lead to a more Italian friendly government?  How much of an impact will there be on the Dollar-Euro exchange rate in a year, three?  20?  And then there all the structural issues that were there before like how much can stocks fall anyway given the P/E ratios on each continent, etc.

Unless you are a soothsayer, just looking at whether the European or American markets are hit hardest isn't going to cut it.  I don't have the slightest clue what a good indicator would be though, I'm just going with what seems natural to me.