11 ms·

Here's my problem with Approval Voting: Let's say you are left-wing, and there is a left-wing, centrist, and right-wing candidate running. Do you approve the ce

Here's my problem with Approval Voting: Let's say you are left-wing, and there is a left-wing, centrist, and right-wing candidate running. Do you approve the centrist candidate? If you approve the centrist candidate, you may block the right-wing candidate, but you also may block the left-wing candidate. There is no clear and obvious way for the voter to translate their preference into an approval vote.

eru 11y ago
That's an interesting point. Yes, approval voting, like all other voting systems, requires voters to not only know their preferences, but also to play a little `game' (in the game theory sense of the word). The optimal strategy on who to vote for depends not only on preferences, but also on what you know about the other voters. Polls help here. The nice thing about approval voting is that, even though their might not be one single, clear and obvious way to translate your preference into your vote; but there is a clear and obvious family of ways to do so. And they have nice properties. In-first-past-the-post, people often elect to give their vote to the lesser evil, instead of their preferred (third-party) candidate. In approval voting, you will never have to give a compromise candidate more `vote' than any other candidate you prefer. Ie all families of sensible voting strategies for approval voting look like this: - sort candidates in order of preference - figure out a cutoff - approve anyone above the cutoff The optimal cutoff depends on the peculiarities of the election (polls etc). In practice, people manage this quite well intuitively. (I have run approval votings for small things, like which restaurant to take the team to.)
- gfunk911 11y ago
  I like the idea but don't agree that all you do is vote above the cutoff. If there are 10 choices and I approve of 3, but I know my 7 and 9 are the only possible winners, I'll likely vote 1 2 3 7.
  - ClayShentrup 11y ago
    Your best strategy is to approve all candidates you prefer to the expected value of the winner. http://www.electology.org/score-voting-threshold-strategy http://www.electology.org/score-voting-threshold-strategy This works out well, tending to elect Condorcet winners. http://ScoreVoting.net/AppCW.html http://ScoreVoting.net/AppCW.html
    - eru 11y ago
      Thanks. So the best strategy is even simpler! So you do vote above the cutoff. But the optimal cutoff is really simple to find from the polls.
      - winstonewert 11y ago
        I don't think that works. Polls tell you the levels of support of the candidates, they don't give you the probability of each candidate winning which is what you need to figure out the expected value of the winner.
        eru 11y ago
        I guess it's back to the prediction markets (or fivethirtyeight) then.
- winstonewert 11y ago
  I don't think other system require "playing the game" in the same way as approval voting. You can game any voting system by voting strategically, but approval voting seems unique in actually expecting people to have to vote strategically.
  - ClayShentrup 11y ago
    You can vote strategically in any deterministic voting method. There's nothing special about Approval Voting. People can vote honestly based on whether they approve (have a favorable opinion of) a candidate. Or they can be tactical and base the decision on probability of winning.
    - eru 11y ago
      And in approval voting at least your strategy is very close to honesty. Your strategic consideration only consists in choosing a cutoff.
  - eru 11y ago
    > I don't think other system require "playing the game" in the same way as approval voting. You must be joking? Almost no one ever votes their true preference in first-past-the-post. People usually vote for the lesser evil of the top two candidates, because any other strategy (like voting for who you'd actually like to win the election) just wastes your vote. In any case, check out eg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting for other people's thoughts on the system. There's much more online about all aspects and pros and cons that we don't need to rehash.
    - winstonewert 11y ago
      Sorry, I tend to think of FPTP as being so messed up it doesn't qualify as a voting system. I was comparing approval voting to alternatives like Ranked Pairs/IRV/Borda etc.
      - 11y ago
ClayShentrup 11y ago
This isn't a problem. Numerous contentious Approval Voting elections and exit polls have been held with Approval Voting, showing voters can certainly cast a vote without being paralyzed by indecisiveness. If YOU can't make up your mind, then just don't vote. Seriously. You can get Approval Voting and just not even show up and vote. You'll still get massively better election outcomes because of all the people who do show up to vote are using an objectively better decision-making algorithm. Yes, objectively better. http://ScoreVoting.net/BayRegsFig.html http://ScoreVoting.net/BayRegsFig.html
- winstonewert 11y ago
  I didn't intend to suggest someone wouldn't vote because they are "paralyzed by indecisiveness." My concern is that people will vote sub-optimally due to poor information about other voters preferences and poor understanding of the strategy involved.
  - eru 11y ago
    That's a valid concern. http://www.electology.org/score-voting-threshold-strategy http://www.electology.org/score-voting-threshold-strategy argues that in approval voting an honest ballot would give you (by some measure) at least 91% of the impact of a perfect tactical ballot. An honest vote in first-past-the-post, say for your awesome friend Bob for President, would give you approximately 0% return compared to the proper strategy of voting for the lesser evil of Clinton.
    - winstonewert 11y ago
      Actually, that discussion is about an honest score voting ballot, not an honest approval ballot.
      - eru 11y ago
        Hmm, the author confusingly mixes topics.

eru 11y ago

That's an interesting point. Yes, approval voting, like all other voting systems, requires voters to not only know their preferences, but also to play a little `game' (in the game theory sense of the word). The optimal strategy on who to vote for depends not only on preferences, but also on what you know about the other voters. Polls help here. The nice thing about approval voting is that, even though their might not be one single, clear and obvious way to translate your preference into your vote; but there is a clear and obvious family of ways to do so. And they have nice properties. In-first-past-the-post, people often elect to give their vote to the lesser evil, instead of their preferred (third-party) candidate. In approval voting, you will never have to give a compromise candidate more `vote' than any other candidate you prefer. Ie all families of sensible voting strategies for approval voting look like this: - sort candidates in order of preference - figure out a cutoff - approve anyone above the cutoff The optimal cutoff depends on the peculiarities of the election (polls etc). In practice, people manage this quite well intuitively. (I have run approval votings for small things, like which restaurant to take the team to.)

gfunk911 11y ago
I like the idea but don't agree that all you do is vote above the cutoff. If there are 10 choices and I approve of 3, but I know my 7 and 9 are the only possible winners, I'll likely vote 1 2 3 7.
- ClayShentrup 11y ago
  Your best strategy is to approve all candidates you prefer to the expected value of the winner. http://www.electology.org/score-voting-threshold-strategy http://www.electology.org/score-voting-threshold-strategy This works out well, tending to elect Condorcet winners. http://ScoreVoting.net/AppCW.html http://ScoreVoting.net/AppCW.html
  - eru 11y ago
    Thanks. So the best strategy is even simpler! So you do vote above the cutoff. But the optimal cutoff is really simple to find from the polls.
    - winstonewert 11y ago
      I don't think that works. Polls tell you the levels of support of the candidates, they don't give you the probability of each candidate winning which is what you need to figure out the expected value of the winner.
      - eru 11y ago
        I guess it's back to the prediction markets (or fivethirtyeight) then.
winstonewert 11y ago
I don't think other system require "playing the game" in the same way as approval voting. You can game any voting system by voting strategically, but approval voting seems unique in actually expecting people to have to vote strategically.
- ClayShentrup 11y ago
  You can vote strategically in any deterministic voting method. There's nothing special about Approval Voting. People can vote honestly based on whether they approve (have a favorable opinion of) a candidate. Or they can be tactical and base the decision on probability of winning.
  - eru 11y ago
    And in approval voting at least your strategy is very close to honesty. Your strategic consideration only consists in choosing a cutoff.
- eru 11y ago
  > I don't think other system require "playing the game" in the same way as approval voting. You must be joking? Almost no one ever votes their true preference in first-past-the-post. People usually vote for the lesser evil of the top two candidates, because any other strategy (like voting for who you'd actually like to win the election) just wastes your vote. In any case, check out eg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting for other people's thoughts on the system. There's much more online about all aspects and pros and cons that we don't need to rehash.
  - winstonewert 11y ago
    Sorry, I tend to think of FPTP as being so messed up it doesn't qualify as a voting system. I was comparing approval voting to alternatives like Ranked Pairs/IRV/Borda etc.
    - 11y ago

ClayShentrup 11y ago

This isn't a problem. Numerous contentious Approval Voting elections and exit polls have been held with Approval Voting, showing voters can certainly cast a vote without being paralyzed by indecisiveness. If YOU can't make up your mind, then just don't vote. Seriously. You can get Approval Voting and just not even show up and vote. You'll still get massively better election outcomes because of all the people who do show up to vote are using an objectively better decision-making algorithm. Yes, objectively better. http://ScoreVoting.net/BayRegsFig.html http://ScoreVoting.net/BayRegsFig.html

winstonewert 11y ago
I didn't intend to suggest someone wouldn't vote because they are "paralyzed by indecisiveness." My concern is that people will vote sub-optimally due to poor information about other voters preferences and poor understanding of the strategy involved.
- eru 11y ago
  That's a valid concern. http://www.electology.org/score-voting-threshold-strategy http://www.electology.org/score-voting-threshold-strategy argues that in approval voting an honest ballot would give you (by some measure) at least 91% of the impact of a perfect tactical ballot. An honest vote in first-past-the-post, say for your awesome friend Bob for President, would give you approximately 0% return compared to the proper strategy of voting for the lesser evil of Clinton.
  - winstonewert 11y ago
    Actually, that discussion is about an honest score voting ballot, not an honest approval ballot.
    - eru 11y ago
      Hmm, the author confusingly mixes topics.