5 ms·

electoral system that supports more than two viable parties This would be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R

electoral system that supports more than two viable parties This would be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting Explanation of USA's FPTP count as root cause of a two party system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

dragonwriter 10y ago
No, it wouldn't be IRV, except maybe for a minority (e.g., chief executive) offices whee single winner is hard to escape. It would be something proportional for legislative offices (which might use a ranked choice system like STV, or might not.)
_archon_ 10y ago
I think instant runoff voting is optimal, but it's too confusing for an idiot in a hurry. I'd be content with simple approval voting. Every candidate has a checkbox next to their name on the ballot. If you approve of the candidate, check the box. Most checks wins. Ballot will have a lot of names, but that's the price of democracy.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > I think instant runoff voting is optimal It's very nearly the worst actually proposed single-member ranked ballots system; I can't imagine any way in which it is optimal. It's better than FPTP, but that's a pretty low bar.
- ScottBurson 10y ago
  I too think AV (Approval Voting) is the best. It's bog simple to explain [ETA: and to implement using existing voting equipment], and completely immune from both strategic candidate selection and strategic voting. Its only downside, IMO, is reduced detectability of vote count tampering: there's no simple relationship between the number of voters and the number of votes, as there is with plurality voting or even IRV. So if you're going to use AV, you have to have an auditable paper trail. That's a very good idea anyway, of course, and lots of places are moving in that direction, so I don't think this is really a barrier. (For very small numbers of voters, such as for elections within an academic society, Rating Voting is even better, but its advantages fade as the number of voters increases. AV is just the limiting case of RV with only two values.)
  - vinay427 10y ago
    > there's no simple relationship between the number of voters and the number of votes, as there is with plurality voting or even IRV This problem still exists in FPTP where some voters may opt not to vote for any candidate for a position.
manicdee 10y ago
Single Trasferable Vote is a far better system, allowing for much more nuance in voting than simply "Team A or Team B". Note that choice of voting systems don't matter so much if you only have one representative per electorate.
astrodust 10y ago
Other countries have multiple viable parties because that's just how they roll. Canada uses the shitty FPTP system and while at the federal level it's mostly been two parties, several other parties have held significant clout over the last century. It's not impossible for it to work, it's just difficult. At the provincial level you see a lot more variety because they don't need to appeal country-wide, they can focus on local issues (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parti_Québécois https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parti_Québécois, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildrose_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildrose_Party) Sadly electoral reform here has recently been put on hold much to the frustration of many as it was an election platform issue. I'm sure part of the problem with reform is there's too many options and some of them are so dizzyingly complicated to explain that most people prefer the "simple but busted" FPTP method to something more mysterious and formula-based.
rrradical 10y ago
Just an observation-- every time the topic of alternate voting systems is brought up on HN, or anywhere really, the discussion devolves into an argument over which alternative system is the best. It's quite obvious to me that if we are ever going to actually move on from FPTP we need to change the conversation to "this one works; it's better than FPTP; let's implement it". Unfortunately, I don't know how we get there, because anyone that cares about this stuff loves to debate the merits of their chosen system. And to top it all off, you can prove that no system is the best in all circumstances!
- karmelapple 10y ago
  Maine just passed it this past November [1], so I'd suggest we use them as the starting point. There are many versions of it, but let's go with Maine for now, since it got acceptance and will soon have a track record. [1] https://ballotpedia.org/Maine_Ranked_Choice_Voting_Initiative,_Question_5_(2016) https://ballotpedia.org/Maine_Ranked_Choice_Voting_Initiativ...
  - Buttons840 10y ago
    We may never agree on which voting system is best. But maybe we can agree on which alternative systems have been most easily deployed elsewhere. So I agree, rather than argue over small differences we should probably just try to get everyone to do what Maine did.
- jpfed 10y ago
  This set of simulations ( explanations: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dzt-q6Gb8PHAgkLBv2j7UhiijbWGSaQeoeYy16YOt4Y/edit https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dzt-q6Gb8PHAgkLBv2j7Uhii... , graphs: http://rpubs.com/Jameson-Quinn/vse3 http://rpubs.com/Jameson-Quinn/vse3) shows that basically anything is better than FPTP. (It also shows that IRV is only marginally better; while "worse is better" sets my teeth on edge, if IRV is the doable option I'll take it rather than wait for people to come around on score methods).
  - dragonwriter 10y ago

dragonwriter 10y ago

No, it wouldn't be IRV, except maybe for a minority (e.g., chief executive) offices whee single winner is hard to escape. It would be something proportional for legislative offices (which might use a ranked choice system like STV, or might not.)

_archon_ 10y ago

I think instant runoff voting is optimal, but it's too confusing for an idiot in a hurry. I'd be content with simple approval voting. Every candidate has a checkbox next to their name on the ballot. If you approve of the candidate, check the box. Most checks wins. Ballot will have a lot of names, but that's the price of democracy.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> I think instant runoff voting is optimal It's very nearly the worst actually proposed single-member ranked ballots system; I can't imagine any way in which it is optimal. It's better than FPTP, but that's a pretty low bar.
ScottBurson 10y ago
I too think AV (Approval Voting) is the best. It's bog simple to explain [ETA: and to implement using existing voting equipment], and completely immune from both strategic candidate selection and strategic voting. Its only downside, IMO, is reduced detectability of vote count tampering: there's no simple relationship between the number of voters and the number of votes, as there is with plurality voting or even IRV. So if you're going to use AV, you have to have an auditable paper trail. That's a very good idea anyway, of course, and lots of places are moving in that direction, so I don't think this is really a barrier. (For very small numbers of voters, such as for elections within an academic society, Rating Voting is even better, but its advantages fade as the number of voters increases. AV is just the limiting case of RV with only two values.)
- vinay427 10y ago
  > there's no simple relationship between the number of voters and the number of votes, as there is with plurality voting or even IRV This problem still exists in FPTP where some voters may opt not to vote for any candidate for a position.

manicdee 10y ago

Single Trasferable Vote is a far better system, allowing for much more nuance in voting than simply "Team A or Team B". Note that choice of voting systems don't matter so much if you only have one representative per electorate.

astrodust 10y ago

Other countries have multiple viable parties because that's just how they roll. Canada uses the shitty FPTP system and while at the federal level it's mostly been two parties, several other parties have held significant clout over the last century. It's not impossible for it to work, it's just difficult. At the provincial level you see a lot more variety because they don't need to appeal country-wide, they can focus on local issues (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parti_Québécois https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parti_Québécois, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildrose_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildrose_Party) Sadly electoral reform here has recently been put on hold much to the frustration of many as it was an election platform issue. I'm sure part of the problem with reform is there's too many options and some of them are so dizzyingly complicated to explain that most people prefer the "simple but busted" FPTP method to something more mysterious and formula-based.

rrradical 10y ago

Just an observation-- every time the topic of alternate voting systems is brought up on HN, or anywhere really, the discussion devolves into an argument over which alternative system is the best. It's quite obvious to me that if we are ever going to actually move on from FPTP we need to change the conversation to "this one works; it's better than FPTP; let's implement it". Unfortunately, I don't know how we get there, because anyone that cares about this stuff loves to debate the merits of their chosen system. And to top it all off, you can prove that no system is the best in all circumstances!

karmelapple 10y ago
Maine just passed it this past November [1], so I'd suggest we use them as the starting point. There are many versions of it, but let's go with Maine for now, since it got acceptance and will soon have a track record. [1] https://ballotpedia.org/Maine_Ranked_Choice_Voting_Initiative,_Question_5_(2016) https://ballotpedia.org/Maine_Ranked_Choice_Voting_Initiativ...
- Buttons840 10y ago
  We may never agree on which voting system is best. But maybe we can agree on which alternative systems have been most easily deployed elsewhere. So I agree, rather than argue over small differences we should probably just try to get everyone to do what Maine did.
jpfed 10y ago
This set of simulations ( explanations: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dzt-q6Gb8PHAgkLBv2j7UhiijbWGSaQeoeYy16YOt4Y/edit https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dzt-q6Gb8PHAgkLBv2j7Uhii... , graphs: http://rpubs.com/Jameson-Quinn/vse3 http://rpubs.com/Jameson-Quinn/vse3) shows that basically anything is better than FPTP. (It also shows that IRV is only marginally better; while "worse is better" sets my teeth on edge, if IRV is the doable option I'll take it rather than wait for people to come around on score methods).
- dragonwriter 10y ago