I don't have any answers. Neither am I aware of anyone else who has any answers.
I know lots of people who "think" they have "all" the answers, and that's the problem.
I suspect the trick is knowing which questions to ask, but I haven't figured it out yet!
The arguments in favour of AV are redolent of "The Abilene Paradox", devised by the American behavioural scientist Jerry B. Harvey, in which a Texas family reaches a "pseudoconsensus" to take a disastrous 50-mile trip to Abilene because each of the decision makers wrongly believes that it is what the others all want.
AV works for election to a Committee where there are, say, eight candidates for five vacancies or for local elections where three Councillors are elected from nine candidates because the candidates with very little support are eliminated bottom-upwards but the voters preferences are not wasted.
In General Elections, voters are choosing one Candidate from a list that could stretch to ten or more and it is difficult to see how redistributing the few hundred votes of the "loony" candidates will achieve a better result than at present.
Rubbish! What you are referring to is Groupthink, where the participants of a "ingroup" interact with each other to produce false consensus.
In any case as I've posted before it will make no difference and the Loony candidates will still end up in government doing Groupthink.
It is not the voters who are the problem - Both systems produce a groupthink result and it is that we have to challenge. AV is a small but significant step in that direction.
"Groupthink" is about the decision-making process whereas the "Abilene Paradox" is about the nature of the decision being made. Groupthink could produce an "Abilene" type decision but so could other styles of group-dynamic.
Presume, without contra evidence, that people find "The Oak" acceptible enough.
Voters, by and large, do not interact. Except in so far as they second guess what the result will be and vote tactically. AV takes away the need to do this. That is the whole point of it.
It is the people we elect who indulge in Groupthink and make stupid decisions. What we need is to elect a few people who can challenge the status quo and add some reason and thought before we all proceed headlong into the shit.
The arguments in favour of AV are redolent of "The Abilene Paradox", devised by the American behavioural scientist Jerry B. Harvey, in which a Texas family reaches a "pseudoconsensus" to take a disastrous 50-mile trip to Abilene because each of the decision makers wrongly believes that it is what the others all want.
ReplyDeleteAV works for election to a Committee where there are, say, eight candidates for five vacancies or for local elections where three Councillors are elected from nine candidates because the candidates with very little support are eliminated bottom-upwards but the voters preferences are not wasted.
In General Elections, voters are choosing one Candidate from a list that could stretch to ten or more and it is difficult to see how redistributing the few hundred votes of the "loony" candidates will achieve a better result than at present.
Rubbish! What you are referring to is Groupthink, where the participants of a "ingroup" interact with each other to produce false consensus.
ReplyDeleteIn any case as I've posted before it will make no difference and the Loony candidates will still end up in government doing Groupthink.
It is not the voters who are the problem - Both systems produce a groupthink result and it is that we have to challenge. AV is a small but significant step in that direction.
Anyway Jawal1, which pub do want to meet up in next time......?
ReplyDelete"Groupthink" is about the decision-making process whereas the "Abilene Paradox" is about the nature of the decision being made. Groupthink could produce an "Abilene" type decision but so could other styles of group-dynamic.
ReplyDeletePresume, without contra evidence, that people find "The Oak" acceptible enough.
Nonsense! The process and the result are related.
ReplyDeleteVoters, by and large, do not interact. Except in so far as they second guess what the result will be and vote tactically. AV takes away the need to do this. That is the whole point of it.
It is the people we elect who indulge in Groupthink and make stupid decisions. What we need is to elect a few people who can challenge the status quo and add some reason and thought before we all proceed headlong into the shit.
See you in the Delicious Cafe then?
ReplyDelete