FAQs
No. America is not a democracy, but it is a Liberal Democracy. They are not the same. Democracy is when
policy aligns with public opinion in a majority rule manner. Liberal Democracy is a system that
implements a specific set of policies. Those policies are generally good things, but they do not
guarantee a democracy. When politicians talk about democracy, what they are really talking about is
Liberal Democracy.
When there are only 2 viable candidates, both of those candidates have only 1 opponent. Therefore,
taking a vote away from your opponent is the same as earning a vote for yourself. Attacking your
opponent is much easier than delivering for the public. Similarly, making empty promises is much easier
than keeping your promises. So the winners tend to be the ones best at attacking and making empty
promises rather than the ones who are best at delivering for the public.
Furthermore, each party needs to run a single candidate in order to have a chance in the general election. Otherwise they will split the vote, and the other party will win. This is why we have primaries. Most primaries are won by earning the favor of the party, not by running on a good platform. Corruption is the best strategy, so corrupt candidates make their way up the ranks and into office.
When you remove the spoiler effect, there are many viable candidates. When you have many opponents, attacking becomes much more difficult because you have to attack all opponents for the same effect. Without the spoiler effect politicians cannot rely on cheap tricks to win elections.
Furthermore, each party needs to run a single candidate in order to have a chance in the general election. Otherwise they will split the vote, and the other party will win. This is why we have primaries. Most primaries are won by earning the favor of the party, not by running on a good platform. Corruption is the best strategy, so corrupt candidates make their way up the ranks and into office.
When you remove the spoiler effect, there are many viable candidates. When you have many opponents, attacking becomes much more difficult because you have to attack all opponents for the same effect. Without the spoiler effect politicians cannot rely on cheap tricks to win elections.
Neither. The problem is the rules of the game. Outcomes are a consequence of the incentives. Incentives
are a consequence of the rules. We need to change the rules to fix the incentives to improve the
outcomes.
Your vote is not wasted because even though you voted for a fringe candidate who did not get the most
votes, your vote still gets cast on legislation. The spoiler effect will not be completely gone because
candidates still need to meet a minimum threshold of votes to win. This avoids getting too many winners
creating logistical problems. We have a similar system today where candidates need to get a certain
number of signatures to get on the ballot.
There are complex voting systems that perform well when electing a single candidate. However, it is
unreasonable to educate everyone on how to vote strategically with these voting systems. The solution is to
use Indirect Democracy to create a small group of people that closely reflects public sentiment: congress.
Then we educate the members of congress on how to use one of these voting systems, and they elect the
leader.
Yes. Setting the threshold for winning will be important to balance the spoiler effect against logistical
challenges. Set it too high and the spoiler effect will become too powerful. Set it too low and you will end
up with far too many winners. There will be a sweet spot. That sweet spot will still mean there are
significantly more winners than before. Solving the resulting logistical challenges is a small price to pay
in exchange for democracy.
It is true that the ones elected by this system will not want to change this system. However, there is a way
to win.
Step 1: convince enough people that Indirect Democracy is a good idea.
Step 2: only vote for candidates in primaries who support Indirect Democracy.
Primaries also have fewer people voting making it easier to swing their elections. It is safer to make a principled vote in a primary than a general election. If your candidate loses in a primary, you still get a candidate from the same party. If voters in both parties elect Indirect Democracy candidates in the primaries, then it does not matter who wins in the general election.
Step 1: convince enough people that Indirect Democracy is a good idea.
Step 2: only vote for candidates in primaries who support Indirect Democracy.
Primaries also have fewer people voting making it easier to swing their elections. It is safer to make a principled vote in a primary than a general election. If your candidate loses in a primary, you still get a candidate from the same party. If voters in both parties elect Indirect Democracy candidates in the primaries, then it does not matter who wins in the general election.
We are on Step 1: spread the word.