4 ms·

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 wh

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
  Score methods are worse for a reason that doesn't show up in most simulations, because mapping of expected utility to an an externalized score isn't consistent between individuals, but instead highly variable (both among individuals within groups and, particularly, along ethnic and other cultural lines), which has been shown in many studies of score-based rating systems.in many domains. Most simulations assume consistent mapping from preferences to ballot markings, which is reasonable for ranked, but not score, voting.
  - karmelapple 10y ago
    Have links to any of those studies? I am unfamiliar with the terminology but would like to learn more.
  - iainmerrick 10y ago
    Exactly, score voting is just as vulnerable to tactical voting as any other method for that reason. For example, if the scoring range is 1-10, it's better for me to use the full range even if none of the options on offer is really a 1 or 10. Using the full range gives my opinion more weight in the result. I strongly suspect score voting tends towards ranked voting when people vote tactically, which they always will, just with extra noise and randomness. (I don't know of any studies on this, though.)
dragonwriter 10y ago
Actually, the problem is there is a difference between alternative voting systems (which IRV is) vs. broader changes to the electoral system (eliminating single-member districts for legislative bodies in favor of something that can provide more proportional representation.) Since the latter is what is empirically shown in real democracies to be strongly associated with both satisfaction with government and ability of a system to support multiple viable parties and multidimensional debate on policy in the public sphere (see, e.g., Lijphart's Patterns of Democracy), I'm as disinterested in wasting time with the former as I am with wasting time with any other method of rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic of American democracy, like fiddling with how district lines are drawn for single-member districts.
SmellyGeekBoy 10y ago
Not just on HN but in real life too. In the UK we had a referendum on switching to a ranked voting system known as "AV" a few years back. It was defeated with 68% voting against. Of the people I asked, the older more politically conservative people opposed it because of the perception that it would make it more difficult for their party of choice to win (I heard this argument on both sides of the political spectrum) and the younger, more liberal voters opposed it because it "wasn't good enough". Less than half of the population even bothered to participate. So we're still stuck with FPTP. The only chance we've had to completely overhaul our election system and people voted overwhelmingly against it. Ho hum...
- iainmerrick 10y ago
  I was bitterly disappointed in that too. The universal lack of interest was just appalling. I felt particularly betrayed by Labour's lukewarm support -- a proposal for a big, permanent change and they were fretting over how it would damage them in the short term.
iainmerrick 10y ago
What's needed (to put it in programming terms) is gradual refactoring, not a brand new system. We need to figure out small changes that can make things better. Once we have more confidence in the system we can start thinking about how to make bigger changes safely. Here are a couple of small tweaks that will help a bit: 1. Ditch the electoral college, elect the president by popular vote. There's a concrete proposal for doing that, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta... 2. Fix gerrymandering in congressional districts and state senates. Again, there's a concrete proposal, which recently won an important legal battle in Wisconsin (Whitford v Gill): http://www.fairelectionsproject.org http://www.fairelectionsproject.org Neither of those helps bust open the two-party system, but they'll at least help level the playing field so that the big two parties don't have artificial incentives biased towards special interests. Fixing voter suppression is very important. Anyone know of any good efforts afoot there? As for third parties, I think that's probably best done first at the state level. If one or more states adopt a more proportional system internally, and show it can work well, that would provide a blueprint for implementing it nationally. I guess Trump could get away with some really radical proposal, like using PR for the Senate. Both parties would almost certainly resist that though. He would need substantial popular backing, whereas every bungling decision he makes right now is making him less popular.

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
Score methods are worse for a reason that doesn't show up in most simulations, because mapping of expected utility to an an externalized score isn't consistent between individuals, but instead highly variable (both among individuals within groups and, particularly, along ethnic and other cultural lines), which has been shown in many studies of score-based rating systems.in many domains. Most simulations assume consistent mapping from preferences to ballot markings, which is reasonable for ranked, but not score, voting.
- karmelapple 10y ago
  Have links to any of those studies? I am unfamiliar with the terminology but would like to learn more.
- iainmerrick 10y ago
  Exactly, score voting is just as vulnerable to tactical voting as any other method for that reason. For example, if the scoring range is 1-10, it's better for me to use the full range even if none of the options on offer is really a 1 or 10. Using the full range gives my opinion more weight in the result. I strongly suspect score voting tends towards ranked voting when people vote tactically, which they always will, just with extra noise and randomness. (I don't know of any studies on this, though.)

dragonwriter 10y ago

Actually, the problem is there is a difference between alternative voting systems (which IRV is) vs. broader changes to the electoral system (eliminating single-member districts for legislative bodies in favor of something that can provide more proportional representation.) Since the latter is what is empirically shown in real democracies to be strongly associated with both satisfaction with government and ability of a system to support multiple viable parties and multidimensional debate on policy in the public sphere (see, e.g., Lijphart's Patterns of Democracy), I'm as disinterested in wasting time with the former as I am with wasting time with any other method of rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic of American democracy, like fiddling with how district lines are drawn for single-member districts.

SmellyGeekBoy 10y ago

Not just on HN but in real life too. In the UK we had a referendum on switching to a ranked voting system known as "AV" a few years back. It was defeated with 68% voting against. Of the people I asked, the older more politically conservative people opposed it because of the perception that it would make it more difficult for their party of choice to win (I heard this argument on both sides of the political spectrum) and the younger, more liberal voters opposed it because it "wasn't good enough". Less than half of the population even bothered to participate. So we're still stuck with FPTP. The only chance we've had to completely overhaul our election system and people voted overwhelmingly against it. Ho hum...

iainmerrick 10y ago
I was bitterly disappointed in that too. The universal lack of interest was just appalling. I felt particularly betrayed by Labour's lukewarm support -- a proposal for a big, permanent change and they were fretting over how it would damage them in the short term.

iainmerrick 10y ago

What's needed (to put it in programming terms) is gradual refactoring, not a brand new system. We need to figure out small changes that can make things better. Once we have more confidence in the system we can start thinking about how to make bigger changes safely. Here are a couple of small tweaks that will help a bit: 1. Ditch the electoral college, elect the president by popular vote. There's a concrete proposal for doing that, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta... 2. Fix gerrymandering in congressional districts and state senates. Again, there's a concrete proposal, which recently won an important legal battle in Wisconsin (Whitford v Gill): http://www.fairelectionsproject.org http://www.fairelectionsproject.org Neither of those helps bust open the two-party system, but they'll at least help level the playing field so that the big two parties don't have artificial incentives biased towards special interests. Fixing voter suppression is very important. Anyone know of any good efforts afoot there? As for third parties, I think that's probably best done first at the state level. If one or more states adopt a more proportional system internally, and show it can work well, that would provide a blueprint for implementing it nationally. I guess Trump could get away with some really radical proposal, like using PR for the Senate. Both parties would almost certainly resist that though. He would need substantial popular backing, whereas every bungling decision he makes right now is making him less popular.