5 ms·

The presentation is extremely nice and detailed oriented. This also co-relates to how messed up 2016 US election cycle is and in general how complicated electio

by akshayB 10y ago

The presentation is extremely nice and detailed oriented. This also co-relates to how messed up 2016 US election cycle is and in general how complicated elections are in USA. 1) You have few candidates on each side Democratic & Republics and eventually folks get eliminated 2) Then you can have independent candidates that can jump in 3) People finally vote for the president - But we have winner takes it all by state - The number of electoral votes is decided by the population distribution on the state - Another complication each state can have a different way of solving ties

akshayB 10y ago
Also the people who vote earlier in the process their vote essentially becomes useless if the candidate drops after a month.
sp332 10y ago
Not every state is winner-take-all either. And representation is not exactly proportional by population. You get one vote for each senator and each representative your state has in congress, which favors smaller states.
- akshayB 10y ago
  What I was trying to say is if you come from a small state like Hawaii or Rhode Island, your votes becomes part of this small group which does not deliver a bigger impact like New York or California. I was just trying to highlight list of complications like the presenter did with 3 small choices.
  - sp332 10y ago
    I guess this is more of a problem in states that have a large majority one way or the other - you feel like the "extra" votes in that direction are wasted. But I'm from NH. We only have 4 votes but because we are evenly divided (and highly over-represented for our population), we regularly make "tipping-point" lists and each vote has a lot more power than it does in other states.
    - akshayB 10y ago
      I am from Jersey, I agree the distribution is not at all even and that is one reason why few state decide the entire election.
dclowd9901 10y ago
I still maintain one of the best voting systems has you vote successively for a majority winner. - Many candidates run - If someone has a majority (more than 50% of vote), that person wins - Otherwise, top x number of candidates move on to next round - repeat This way, changes in availability are addressed, so people can make fair choices between one item and the next.
- antognini 10y ago
  That would basically be instant runoff voting. The main issue with that is that in a polarized election you can have a moderate compromise option eliminated early. For example, suppose the election is between a far-left, moderate, and far-right candidate. 40% prefer the far-left candidate, 20% prefer the moderate candidate, and 40% prefer the far-right candidate. In this case 60% of the population prefers the moderate candidate to the far-right candidate, and 60% prefer the moderate candidate to the far-left candidate and so the moderate candidate should win the election. But in an IRV-type system, the moderate candidate gets eliminated immediately and the election is then between the extreme candidates.

by akshayB 10y ago

akshayB 10y ago

Also the people who vote earlier in the process their vote essentially becomes useless if the candidate drops after a month.

sp332 10y ago

Not every state is winner-take-all either. And representation is not exactly proportional by population. You get one vote for each senator and each representative your state has in congress, which favors smaller states.

akshayB 10y ago
What I was trying to say is if you come from a small state like Hawaii or Rhode Island, your votes becomes part of this small group which does not deliver a bigger impact like New York or California. I was just trying to highlight list of complications like the presenter did with 3 small choices.
- sp332 10y ago
  I guess this is more of a problem in states that have a large majority one way or the other - you feel like the "extra" votes in that direction are wasted. But I'm from NH. We only have 4 votes but because we are evenly divided (and highly over-represented for our population), we regularly make "tipping-point" lists and each vote has a lot more power than it does in other states.
  - akshayB 10y ago
    I am from Jersey, I agree the distribution is not at all even and that is one reason why few state decide the entire election.

dclowd9901 10y ago

I still maintain one of the best voting systems has you vote successively for a majority winner. - Many candidates run - If someone has a majority (more than 50% of vote), that person wins - Otherwise, top x number of candidates move on to next round - repeat This way, changes in availability are addressed, so people can make fair choices between one item and the next.

antognini 10y ago
That would basically be instant runoff voting. The main issue with that is that in a polarized election you can have a moderate compromise option eliminated early. For example, suppose the election is between a far-left, moderate, and far-right candidate. 40% prefer the far-left candidate, 20% prefer the moderate candidate, and 40% prefer the far-right candidate. In this case 60% of the population prefers the moderate candidate to the far-right candidate, and 60% prefer the moderate candidate to the far-left candidate and so the moderate candidate should win the election. But in an IRV-type system, the moderate candidate gets eliminated immediately and the election is then between the extreme candidates.