7 ms·

I would love score voting. But given the potentially higher cost of implementation, I would be very happy with approval voting (score of 0 or 1), which would b

by bhauer 10y ago

I would love score voting. But given the potentially higher cost of implementation, I would be very happy with approval voting (score of 0 or 1), which would be compatible with most existing ballots. "You may vote for zero or more of the following candidates." Approval voting, as with score, breaks the stranglehold of two-party rule, allows for rather than discourages policy overlap among parties (breaking down polarization), and increases voter satisfaction.

Houshalter 10y ago
Approval voting seems to be the best system if you have tactical voting. In simulations, the improvement from plurality voting to approval voting, is about the same as the improvement from monarchy to plurality voting: http://rangevoting.org/ http://rangevoting.org/ It's also so simple. It's incredible we don't have this already.
- ClayShentrup 10y ago
  It's good, but Score Voting is better.
redahs 10y ago
The problem with approval voting is that it does not give voters a mechanism by which to indicate partial approval. If there is a centrist candidate which many voters only slightly support, there would still be a media horse race over whether or not voters will interpret partial approval to mean 'do not approve' or 'approve' on election day, with a final result that may be unnecessarily surprising to participants. There are also examples on the wikipedia page of some organizations trying range-2 approval voting and abandoning it. Range-3 seems like the minimum range desirable. It would allow voters to indicate whether they disapprove, were neutral toward, or approve of a candidate. The only historical adoption of range-3 I am aware of is the electoral council of the Republic of Venice, and I believed they used it as a constant component in their electoral process for selecting the Doge without abandoning it. The costs of switching to something even better like range-5 may also be over-estimated. Range-5 seems like it would work with existing optical scan ballots. The cost of acquisition for range voting tabulatation code on the state level would also ideally be fairly low due to the simplicity of the preference aggregation method in range voting in comparison to IRV, and Maine is already undertaking a switch to the later.
- bhauer 10y ago
  Like I said, I would love score voting (range voting). Its my preference for precisely the reason you state: it provides the expressiveness to show partial support. And it does so without the constraints of IRV or ranked voting. To my mind, score is the "superset" voting model. However, approval is something that could be installed with relatively low cost and low effort. And it is nearly immediately understood by anyone. Score voting requires a tiny bit more education (although it too is easy to understand; and I suspect most voters would get the hang of it after a couple elections). I would be disappointed with IRV/ranked because it seems the most difficult to understand, requires rework of ballots, and disallows equal scoring (thereby reducing expressiveness). It would be a shame to squander voting reform momentum to end up with IRV.
  - macawfish 10y ago
    > It would be a shame to squander voting reform momentum to end up with IRV. I feel an incredible sense of urgency about this, but am not sure how to go about acting on it. It's hard to convince people that this is part of the root of the problem. Most folks I talk to see the voting system as some kind of technicality, and don't understand that it's actually on a foundational level. It seems like range/score voting could use a big marketing and education overhaul. Fairvote is not helping the situation.
- Houshalter 10y ago
  It doesn't really matter, it still does vastly better than plurality voting. I tried simulations where every individual automatically approved of the top 50% of candidates. It still got good results. Similar if everyone voted for the top 30% of candidates they liked, or any other arbitrary percentage. Using more ranges is silly. There's no reason to ever give a candidate less than maximum vote, if you want to give them a chance at winning. If you don't, then there's no reason to give them anything above 0.
  - dvorak365 10y ago
    More range -> greater expressivity -> better voting system There is no reason to give your favorite candidate less than max score, and no reason to give your least favorite candidate more than 0 score, but the middle does serve a purpose. Scoring other candidates in the middle is to boost their chances of winning against your less-favored candidates at the cost of boosting their chances of winning against your more-favored candidates. There are some variants, such as Range2Runoff, which beats Range often in simulations. I hear that it is much better than pure Range when there are many strategic voters.

by bhauer 10y ago

Houshalter 10y ago

Approval voting seems to be the best system if you have tactical voting. In simulations, the improvement from plurality voting to approval voting, is about the same as the improvement from monarchy to plurality voting: http://rangevoting.org/ http://rangevoting.org/ It's also so simple. It's incredible we don't have this already.

ClayShentrup 10y ago
It's good, but Score Voting is better.

redahs 10y ago

The problem with approval voting is that it does not give voters a mechanism by which to indicate partial approval. If there is a centrist candidate which many voters only slightly support, there would still be a media horse race over whether or not voters will interpret partial approval to mean 'do not approve' or 'approve' on election day, with a final result that may be unnecessarily surprising to participants. There are also examples on the wikipedia page of some organizations trying range-2 approval voting and abandoning it. Range-3 seems like the minimum range desirable. It would allow voters to indicate whether they disapprove, were neutral toward, or approve of a candidate. The only historical adoption of range-3 I am aware of is the electoral council of the Republic of Venice, and I believed they used it as a constant component in their electoral process for selecting the Doge without abandoning it. The costs of switching to something even better like range-5 may also be over-estimated. Range-5 seems like it would work with existing optical scan ballots. The cost of acquisition for range voting tabulatation code on the state level would also ideally be fairly low due to the simplicity of the preference aggregation method in range voting in comparison to IRV, and Maine is already undertaking a switch to the later.

bhauer 10y ago
Like I said, I would love score voting (range voting). Its my preference for precisely the reason you state: it provides the expressiveness to show partial support. And it does so without the constraints of IRV or ranked voting. To my mind, score is the "superset" voting model. However, approval is something that could be installed with relatively low cost and low effort. And it is nearly immediately understood by anyone. Score voting requires a tiny bit more education (although it too is easy to understand; and I suspect most voters would get the hang of it after a couple elections). I would be disappointed with IRV/ranked because it seems the most difficult to understand, requires rework of ballots, and disallows equal scoring (thereby reducing expressiveness). It would be a shame to squander voting reform momentum to end up with IRV.
- macawfish 10y ago
  > It would be a shame to squander voting reform momentum to end up with IRV. I feel an incredible sense of urgency about this, but am not sure how to go about acting on it. It's hard to convince people that this is part of the root of the problem. Most folks I talk to see the voting system as some kind of technicality, and don't understand that it's actually on a foundational level. It seems like range/score voting could use a big marketing and education overhaul. Fairvote is not helping the situation.
Houshalter 10y ago
It doesn't really matter, it still does vastly better than plurality voting. I tried simulations where every individual automatically approved of the top 50% of candidates. It still got good results. Similar if everyone voted for the top 30% of candidates they liked, or any other arbitrary percentage. Using more ranges is silly. There's no reason to ever give a candidate less than maximum vote, if you want to give them a chance at winning. If you don't, then there's no reason to give them anything above 0.
- dvorak365 10y ago
  More range -> greater expressivity -> better voting system There is no reason to give your favorite candidate less than max score, and no reason to give your least favorite candidate more than 0 score, but the middle does serve a purpose. Scoring other candidates in the middle is to boost their chances of winning against your less-favored candidates at the cost of boosting their chances of winning against your more-favored candidates. There are some variants, such as Range2Runoff, which beats Range often in simulations. I hear that it is much better than pure Range when there are many strategic voters.