It is an unfortunate consequence of the plurality voting system. Plurality is horrible and there are all better alternatives, but it is what we are stuck with for now.
I think this sentence both adds nothing to your conclusion and is also be unnecessarily off-putting to people who do not oppose this system.
I was acting under the assumption that anyone who thought about it did not like plurality. If I am wrong, I am very curious what the reasons are. Is anyone willing to justify plurality to me?
I personally prefer a Condorcet method, but I also think STV is strictly better than plurality, and much more likely to ve accepted. I guess I do prefer plurality to Borda count and anti-plurality.
I have found this assumption to be correct. Also, especially when it comes to economists and other who specialize in voting, I have found that “plurality sucks” and variations thereof are almost universal in academia.
I suggest changing the wording to something like “Plurality voting has many problems and there are alternatives that avoid some of those problems, but plurality is what we have. The question I’m addressing here is to how to vote given that reality.” which I think even someone who thinks plurality voting is best overall couldn’t reasonably object to.
(For what it’s worth, I agree that plurality voting is a terrible system and I would expect the great majority of people who think clearly and honestly about the matter to agree.)
I think this sentence both adds nothing to your conclusion and is also be unnecessarily off-putting to people who do not oppose this system.
I was acting under the assumption that anyone who thought about it did not like plurality. If I am wrong, I am very curious what the reasons are. Is anyone willing to justify plurality to me?
I personally prefer a Condorcet method, but I also think STV is strictly better than plurality, and much more likely to ve accepted. I guess I do prefer plurality to Borda count and anti-plurality.
I have found this assumption to be correct. Also, especially when it comes to economists and other who specialize in voting, I have found that “plurality sucks” and variations thereof are almost universal in academia.
I suggest changing the wording to something like “Plurality voting has many problems and there are alternatives that avoid some of those problems, but plurality is what we have. The question I’m addressing here is to how to vote given that reality.” which I think even someone who thinks plurality voting is best overall couldn’t reasonably object to.
(For what it’s worth, I agree that plurality voting is a terrible system and I would expect the great majority of people who think clearly and honestly about the matter to agree.)