4 ms·

One desirable property of FPTP is that if you want to maximize the chances of your candidate being elected, you should vote for your candidate first before all

One desirable property of FPTP is that if you want to maximize the chances of your candidate being elected, you should vote for your candidate first before all other candidates. In IRV, sometimes you should not vote for your candidate first before all other candidates. Is that okay? Here are some interesting diagrams of the results of applying various voting algorithms including IRV: http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/ http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/

tormeh 10y ago
Really cool. The link only looks at single-candidate elections, though. It's unclear to me that this is superior to party-based systems. Particularly Congress could use some proportional representation. EDIT: Wow, would never have guessed that IRV gave such strange results...
- sgeisenh 10y ago
  Any voting system that doesn't satisfy the Condorcet criterion gives what appear to be strange results.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
r00fus 10y ago
Those diagrams aren't very intuitive to me. Do the different shaded regions represent turnout? What is the coordinate of the candidate, position on a 2-axis political scale?
- anonymoushn 10y ago
  A point on the 2d plane represents a preference (if we imagine that there are only 2 real-valued issues in the world). The regions shaded in a particular color are the regions where a normal distribution of popular preferences centered there will elect the corresponding candidate. I assume that individual simulated voters just rank candidates from least to greatest by cartesian distance, or do that and then use a random cutoff for approval voting.
flukus 10y ago
There is no reason to put your candidate as lower than 1 in IRV. The more votes they get as the first preference the less likely they are to be eliminated and the more likely they are to get preferences from already eliminated candidates.
- anonymoushn 10y ago
  Voting for someone other than your favorite first can change the order in which candidates other than your favorite are eliminated. This can cause your favorite to win instead of losing. http://www.rangevoting.org/ClayIrv2.html http://www.rangevoting.org/ClayIrv2.html

tormeh 10y ago

Really cool. The link only looks at single-candidate elections, though. It's unclear to me that this is superior to party-based systems. Particularly Congress could use some proportional representation. EDIT: Wow, would never have guessed that IRV gave such strange results...

sgeisenh 10y ago
Any voting system that doesn't satisfy the Condorcet criterion gives what appear to be strange results.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

r00fus 10y ago

Those diagrams aren't very intuitive to me. Do the different shaded regions represent turnout? What is the coordinate of the candidate, position on a 2-axis political scale?

anonymoushn 10y ago
A point on the 2d plane represents a preference (if we imagine that there are only 2 real-valued issues in the world). The regions shaded in a particular color are the regions where a normal distribution of popular preferences centered there will elect the corresponding candidate. I assume that individual simulated voters just rank candidates from least to greatest by cartesian distance, or do that and then use a random cutoff for approval voting.

flukus 10y ago

There is no reason to put your candidate as lower than 1 in IRV. The more votes they get as the first preference the less likely they are to be eliminated and the more likely they are to get preferences from already eliminated candidates.

anonymoushn 10y ago
Voting for someone other than your favorite first can change the order in which candidates other than your favorite are eliminated. This can cause your favorite to win instead of losing. http://www.rangevoting.org/ClayIrv2.html http://www.rangevoting.org/ClayIrv2.html