
Ask HN: Competitive wages in elected posts, Ranked list voting, Voting tests? - RichardHeart
The technology of governance moves at a snails pace.Voting only works well when there&#x27;s good candidates to choose from. Giving a ranked list instead of a single name honors the intention of the voter better than a single name.  Combining everyone&#x27;s ranked lists gives you a winner that everyone likes, instead of a polarizing winner that half hate and half like.<p>Paying candidates a competitive wage with the private sector, and the chance for financial growth in the position should attract better candidates.<p>You wouldn&#x27;t let an unqualified surgeon operate on your body, so why are unqualified voters allowed to work on your democracy?  Voting tests are dangerous, because they can be written to disenfranchise people.  We&#x27;ve figured out fair tests for all other kinds of professional licensing, so there should be no reason we can&#x27;t figure out a fair test for voting. I made a short video about this topic.<p>Avoiding the pitfalls such as an unfair test, or other; This should create a pool of better candidates, selected through a better voting system by better voters.<p>The question is, how do you repatriate a system that has been captured.
======
al2o3cr

        Combining everyone's ranked lists gives you a winner that everyone likes, instead of a polarizing winner that half hate and half like.
    

I'd recommend reading about Arrow's Theorem.

~~~
RichardHeart
Thank you. I found that: "Arrow originally rejected cardinal utility as a
meaningful tool for expressing social welfare,and so focused his theorem on
preference rankings, but now states that a cardinal score system with three or
four classes "is probably the
best".[[https://electology.org/podcasts/2012-10-06_kenneth_arrow](https://electology.org/podcasts/2012-10-06_kenneth_arrow)]
(via wikipedia)

