Consider this installment three of my previous question which is the second installment. For Election Day, I was researching the history of voting which has taken many forms. At one time in history, people voted by dropping rocks in holes corresponding to their candidate, with the one with most rocks being the candidate who won. We’ve had many forms “of voting”, from rocks in a well to paper ballots to voting machines to whatever this anime concept with glowy lights is. Each method has had supporters and critics, for example critics of voting machines will say it can be rigged, critics of paper ballots will say papers can be mismanaged, and critics of counting yard flags as a method will say it’s too tedious to do it all.

Suppose we discovered dolphins could understand democracy. So here you are coming up with a way to “express a vote”. Underwater, paper shrivels, tech may short-circuit, it’s hard to dig a hole with classic equipment, etc. unless you have a way to make something work. How would you teach dolphins to manifest voting in a non-rigged yet massively usable way?

  • woodenghost [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    4·
    1 month ago

    Good effort comment, thanks! Are you sure about merit based evaluation for MJ? Wouldn’t people just strategically exaggerate their grades?

    MJ encourages honest evaluation because exaggerating grades can backfire if too many others don’t follow suit.

    I guess I don’t quite understand this point. Why wouldn’t everyone exaggerate grades?

    Dolphin liberals would just tell all the dolphins to give dolphin Harris an excellent grade, insisting she was excellent in comparison to dolphin Trump. (Sorry to break out of the thought experiment.) So this:

    This can help identify when all candidates are weak

    wouldn’t happen when all the dolphins try to game the system. Did I misunderstand?

    • snek_boi@lemmy.mlEnglish
      4·
      1 month ago

      I should clarify - rather than ‘backfire,’ exaggeration in Majority Judgment either does nothing or carries a social cost. Here’s why:

      • If a minority exaggerates votes, the median stays unchanged.
      • If everyone exaggerates equally, the same winner emerges, but an artificial high tide of exaggerated grades obscures the real depth of public opinion. This defeats one of MJ’s key strengths: the ability to show when all candidates are viewed poorly and therefore create pressure for better options.

      Regarding partisan concerns: Yes, MJ is vulnerable if partisan blocks coordinate to exaggerate grades. However, MJ offers two meaningful advantages in a two-party system:

      1. Voters can grade third-party candidates highly without ‘wasting’ their vote, as they can still support their party’s candidate.
      2. Once again, poor candidates from both parties could receive revealing low grades, encouraging better alternatives.

      Of course, you were hinting at the fact that MJ’s success in a two-party system depends on fostering a political culture where candid evaluation flows more freely than partisan loyalty. But this is the current that all voting systems must swim against; partisan pressure can steer dolphins’ fins at the polling station regardless of the method used.