tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375684602371061139.post8329517073754479412..comments2013-10-18T11:54:20.529-07:00Comments on Nathan Explains Science: What "The People" "Want", Part One: It DependsAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07722092273431720361noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375684602371061139.post-4981465659495880222010-11-19T07:38:12.312-08:002010-11-19T07:38:12.312-08:00Nice post.
This is tangential to your point, but ...Nice post.<br /><br />This is tangential to your point, but your illustration of the 1992 election reminded me of a discussion on elections and our notion of fairness that I had several years ago in the context of the 2000 election and the Florida recount.<br /><br />If we think in the abstract about two different voting rules, say, plurality and Borda, it is easy to imagine having a rational, good-faith discussion about which of the two is more "fair." Now, for the same reasons that make it difficult or impossible to come to a principled conclusion about what the people want, it may be impossible to come to a principled conclusion about what is most "fair." But, like I say, I can at least imagine having the conversation.<br /><br />On the other hand, once you put in actual numbers, the rational discussion itself becomes impossible. Once I know that Clinton wins under plurality and Bush wins under Borda, my opinions about voting systems become beholden to my preferences regarding the outcome of the election.<br /><br />This was obvious in the 2000 recount. Pundits and lawyers and politicians were running around making principled-sounding arguments about voters' rights and whatnot, but it seemed like every single argument could be explained not by any abstract principle, but by which candidate the particular pundit or lawyer or politician supported. This was true all the way up through the Supreme Court decision.<br /><br />A friend of mine argued that the only fair thing was to let the original count stand. Why? Because that count was the only time when we didn't know in advance what the outcome would be. Either that, or a coin-toss. <br /><br />Or maybe a duel. That would have been awesome.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04284995441818864226noreply@blogger.com