You’ve asked to refute the statement that the French presidential runoff election system is more like market trading behavior than a voting system, and that it creates a false absolute majority.
Contrary to the opinion that the French presidential runoff elections are akin to market trading and result in a false absolute majority, it’s important to understand the true intention and effectiveness of this electoral system. The French runoff system is designed to ensure that the elected president has the support of more than half of the voting population, which is a fundamental principle of democratic representation. This system is not about ‘trading’ but about making an informed choice between the two most popular candidates.
In the first round of voting, the field of candidates is wide, and the votes are spread across many, which might not reflect a clear majority preference. The runoff, by bringing the choice down to the two leading candidates, asks the electorate to make a clearer decision, considering the wider context and the more direct comparison.
Moreover, the suggestion that the eventual winner might lose to most candidates in a hypothetical pairwise election ignores the strategic and informed choices voters make in a two-round system. Voters have the opportunity to reconsider their options based on the results of the first round, which is a democratic process allowing for greater reflection and decision-making.
The argument about voter turnout in the second round being potentially lower does not necessarily indicate a ‘false’ absolute majority. It’s a common phenomenon in many electoral systems where voters are more engaged in initial stages. The crucial point is that the winner of the runoff has still secured more than half of the votes among those who chose to participate, which is a legitimate method of determining the majority preference in democratic systems.
Finally, the notion that this system is tailored for ‘countries that appreciate mathematics’ and is akin to a smart trading strategy undermines the democratic essence of voting. Voting is about expressing choice and preference, not about market-like trading. The French runoff system, rather than creating a false consensus, aims to ensure that the elected president has demonstrable and significant support, enhancing the legitimacy and democratic mandate of the winner.
Spiritual_Bat6625
第二輪投票通常投票率都是大幅降低，變成較量死忠支持者的動員能力。美國跟韓國都沒有搞這種無謂之舉。技術上越複雜的選舉制度，操作空間就越大，反而更容易引發越多意外和爭議。
如果貪藍腐白強行通過，建議就先從縣市首長選舉及區域立委選舉試辦。
tmp2021
法國：你在乳法
Spiritual_Bat6625
IMHO, 法國的二輪總統選舉已多次製造驚奇的結果, 與其說是投票制度, 更像是一種市場交易行為. 這制度本來出發點是要找出具絕對多數代表性的當選人, 然而實際implemetation 就是透過交易製造出一個假的絕對多數當選人 (例如, 如把第一輪參選人 pairwise 抓對選舉, 這當選人可能會輸給多數參選人). 在左右對立的國家, 因為第一輪落選人的支持者容易找到光譜接近的第二輪參選者, 第二輪投票率比較能夠維持住, 然而, 一般來說, 他們可以直接放棄參與第二輪投票, 於是第二輪投票率可以顯著低於第一輪, 那這個第二輪的絕對多數當選人就更假了.
這是一個給喜歡數學的國家設計的制度. 交易要靠聰明機巧, 然而投票制度本該是被動地收集既存的公眾意見, 而分析整理出共識決策 (當選人), 這種 主動 撮合的交易型選舉, 等於在短時間內製造出一個原本多數人未必期待的假共識, 而把選舉制度本身當成解決問題的手段了.
Spiritual_Bat6625
Chat GPT Plus 提出它對我的說法的反論, 如下:
You’ve asked to refute the statement that the French presidential runoff election system is more like market trading behavior than a voting system, and that it creates a false absolute majority.
Contrary to the opinion that the French presidential runoff elections are akin to market trading and result in a false absolute majority, it’s important to understand the true intention and effectiveness of this electoral system. The French runoff system is designed to ensure that the elected president has the support of more than half of the voting population, which is a fundamental principle of democratic representation. This system is not about ‘trading’ but about making an informed choice between the two most popular candidates.
In the first round of voting, the field of candidates is wide, and the votes are spread across many, which might not reflect a clear majority preference. The runoff, by bringing the choice down to the two leading candidates, asks the electorate to make a clearer decision, considering the wider context and the more direct comparison.
Moreover, the suggestion that the eventual winner might lose to most candidates in a hypothetical pairwise election ignores the strategic and informed choices voters make in a two-round system. Voters have the opportunity to reconsider their options based on the results of the first round, which is a democratic process allowing for greater reflection and decision-making.
The argument about voter turnout in the second round being potentially lower does not necessarily indicate a ‘false’ absolute majority. It’s a common phenomenon in many electoral systems where voters are more engaged in initial stages. The crucial point is that the winner of the runoff has still secured more than half of the votes among those who chose to participate, which is a legitimate method of determining the majority preference in democratic systems.
Finally, the notion that this system is tailored for ‘countries that appreciate mathematics’ and is akin to a smart trading strategy undermines the democratic essence of voting. Voting is about expressing choice and preference, not about market-like trading. The French runoff system, rather than creating a false consensus, aims to ensure that the elected president has demonstrable and significant support, enhancing the legitimacy and democratic mandate of the winner.
albertwu203
有趣的觀點