We talked about the "Pareto Condition" and "Condorcet System" this class, so I'm going to give a example from history that this didn't occur. During the US presidential race in 1824, a four-way stalemate between John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, Henry Clay, and William H. Crawford, and occurred in the Electoral College. Jackson had the majority of both the College and the popular vote, but due to the voting requirements for the College, he didn't have enough votes to be declared the winner. The top three candidates were sent to the House of Representatives for them to have the deciding vote and Henry Clay, being forth place, was left out. However, since he was Speaker of the House and had just enough electoral support to swing the election, he managed to get Adams, the 2nd place candidate, to become the 6th President of the United States, in exchange for becoming Secretary of State and (as the last four presidents, including Adams, held the Secretary position before the election) the likely winner of the next election.
Needless to say, this did not go over well with Jackson and his supporters. The election was declared "The Corrupt Bargain" in which Clay sold his votes for personal gain. This, coupled with a rather brutal (even by today's political standards, if not more so) mud-slinging battle between Adams and Jackson during the election, left a grudge in Jackson that wouldn't leave him even after he won the next election. In fact, his departing words after two terms in office as President were "My only regrets were I didn't shoot Henry Clay and hang John C. Calhoun!" (Calhoun had earlier tried to start a rebellion in South Carolina, which would have made the Civil War take place 40 years earlier if it had succeeded). This election also shows the "Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives" in that candidate B (Adams) went from non-winner to winner because of Clay's supporters changing their vote to him.
Wow, This was very interesting to read and learn about. I had no idea this is what went down way back in early 1800s when they were voting on 6th president. I also found it kinda humorous about what Jackson had said about Henry Clay and John. It amazing to learn about what could have happened in our history with the types of voting styles.
ReplyDeleteIt's true. It' weird to think what history could have been like if we had used other voting methods.
ReplyDeleteIt's a shame that there isn't a voting method that prevents manipulation. I don't think it would bother me as much if my selection didn't win, but knowing someone, with no chance of winning, can throw their votes, in turn throwing the election, is really disturbing. These aren't votes for a favorite type of food, these votes are for who is going to run our country and determine our fates as Americans and it's a shame more people don't few it that way.
ReplyDeleteI agree, Tasha. Arrow's Theorem tells us that there is no such method, but we should certainly have a goal of using the least manipulable system available!
DeleteI really enjoyed the historical background that ties into our class discussions. I dont't think we'll ever have corrupt free voting as long as the people appointed can be free of corruption.
ReplyDeleteAs a History major, I found this Extension very interesting. I agree with Natasha that it is sad that there is not a voting method “that prevents manipulation”. This story shows that voting, like many human inventions can be used as a tool by the corrupt to achieve their aims.
ReplyDeleteThat is very interesting from that example. It makes me think on how everything could be different today if different voting systems were used. This example was very helpful!
ReplyDeleteThis seems unfair and I am glad we don't use this option of voting. To think that someone that wasn't even in the running for presidency could effect a true winner.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad to see that history tends to weed out failed ideas as new ones emerge. Although, as Steven mentioned, even these new ideas, and the systems that manifest these ideas, are inherently liable to corruption and manipulation. Things that come from imperfect creatures will also be imperfect. We can only hope to mend and improve on our past!
ReplyDeleteOn a more general note, it would be nice to see politicians using math more abundantly in their oral arguments and their ideological platform. A degree in law may teach one to be a good sophist, but it seems often detrimental in finding truth.
ReplyDeleteWithout a method that can be used without manipulation, there will always be manipulation. I enjoyed the history and I wish I could go back in time and change the method of voting to see better turnouts therefore a better country.
ReplyDeleteGreat example, Andrew! And interesting comments, everyone. To clarify, the system that was being used in 1824 was still plurality, we just had not gone as far in the direction of a two-party system as we have now. In some ways, that made the situation even worse, as this example illustrates. However, no strange or unusual voting system was used here, other than the runoff between the top three candidates. It's interesting to note that, had preference ballots been used, (a) no runoff would have been necessary, and (b) Clay would not have been able to throw the election.
ReplyDelete