4 ms·

Right, I think you have to change the dynamics. Voting ought to better capture citizens preferences, it like we vote with one hand tied behind our backs. Why

Right, I think you have to change the dynamics. Voting ought to better capture citizens preferences, it like we vote with one hand tied behind our backs. Why can't we at least rank the candidates?

mozumder 10y ago
Too complicated. Approval voting is much simpler than ranked-choice, and more appropriate for the general public.
- snakeboy 10y ago
  I would think that given different peoples' standards of "approval", ranked-choice voting is much simpler for the genreal public to grasp, and a more useful metric to base an election on. I suppose we'll see how Maine handers their newly-implemented ranked-choice scheme in the coming election cycles.
  - ClayShentrup 10y ago
    Instant Runoff Voting is actually one of the most complicated voting methods. Approval Voting is arguably the simplest. This can be objectively measured via metrics like ballot spoilage and precinct summability. http://scorevoting.net/Lorenzo.html http://scorevoting.net/Lorenzo.html Here's a read-through of a talk I gave on this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2q_eMUGCU5U&t=487 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2q_eMUGCU5U&t=487
- kirrent 10y ago
  My country has ranked voting. Compulsory ranked voting. No-one seems to have any difficulties with it. What's so hard to understand about rank the candidates in the order that you want them? I did get the chance to flick through a Californian voter information guide for this last election and it seems like if your goal is to make voting simpler then looking at ballot initiatives would be far more useful.
  - ClayShentrup 10y ago
    Most of your Australian countrymen want to get rid of ranked voting. http://scorevoting.net/WhatVotersWant http://scorevoting.net/WhatVotersWant Maybe they think it's too complicated.
    - kirrent 10y ago
      The mentioned discussion by Antony Green: http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2011/02/more-australian-surveys-of-the-preferred-voting-system.html http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2011/02/more-australian-... I think his points are pretty good ones. There was a lot of anger and unhappiness after the 2010 election and the role preferences played in it. I'm not going to change my mind entirely on one poll which hasn't ever been repeated when there are valid objections to the question and the signal isn't even that large. You could have polled people on if the electoral college should be gotten rid of after the last US election and you'd probably get a similar sort of polarised answer for the same reasons. More importantly, I don't really care about what people prefer in their voting system. That probably sounds bad, and I think it's important that people trust it but it's a technical answer to the question of how we discover what people want. That's what I care about, which is why I support compulsory voting which ensures a more representative government at the cost of forcing everyone on the rolls to vote. I'm also not some weird person who thinks we have it perfect here. Obviously optional preferential voting in all cases would be better, not just for the federal senate, and Hare-Clark nationwide would be even cooler than that. There's always improvements to be made.
- nostrademons 10y ago
  The problem with approval voting is that game-theoretically it devolves to plurality voting once everyone understands the system. Approval voting violates the later-no-harm principle: indicating approval for secondary candidates can harm the chance that your primary candidate is elected. Knowing this, why would anyone approve of more than one candidate? http://www.fairvote.org/why-approval-voting-is-unworkable-in-contested-elections http://www.fairvote.org/why-approval-voting-is-unworkable-in...
  - ClayShentrup 10y ago
    Absolutely false. Strategic Plurality Voting means NOT voting for your favorite, e.g. a Green voting Democrat. With Approval Voting, that same voter's best strategy is to vote Democrat AND Green. THAT is why you'd vote for more than one candidate. Later-no-harm is a silly "anti-criterion" that causes more harm than benefit. See explanation by a Princeton math PhD who co-founded the Center for Election Science. http://scorevoting.net/LNH.html http://scorevoting.net/LNH.html He refutes similar FairVote FUD here. http://scorevoting.net/RichieRV.html http://scorevoting.net/RichieRV.html FairVote lacks expertise and lies a lot. https://sites.google.com/a/electology.org/www/fact-check https://sites.google.com/a/electology.org/www/fact-check Here's a layman friendly talk I gave to the Colorado League of Women Voters a few years back. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2q_eMUGCU5U&t=487 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2q_eMUGCU5U&t=487
    - state_less 10y ago
      Thanks for posting all this info. In the youtube video, I liked the end where you talked about an objective satisfaction measure for these systems. For someone who wants to be able to provide more preference information at the ballot, and is not married to any particular method, it does make you wonder, why not directly use the objective measure for voting? You'd get a 1-1 correspondence. Wouldn't that maximize satisfaction and the voting method objective function?
      - ClayShentrup 10y ago
        You can't use it for voting because the voting system isn't omniscient. http://scorevoting.net/WhyNoHumans http://scorevoting.net/WhyNoHumans
- ericd 10y ago
  Ranking by preference isn't exactly hard. Most 18+ year olds can handle it.
  - ClayShentrup 10y ago
    There's empirical evidence saying otherwise. http://scorevoting.net/Lorenzo.html http://scorevoting.net/Lorenzo.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2q_eMUGCU5U&t=487 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2q_eMUGCU5U&t=487
    - ericd 10y ago
      Ah I meant not hard to vote your preferences, it can definitely be hard to understand the outcomes. I think you might be right that that's what the parent was talking about. Nice work injecting some research into this thread.
averagewall 10y ago
Because that would empower minor candidates. The parties that are in power aren't going to change the system in a way that disadvantages themselves and perhaps even poses an existential risk. That means if you vote democrat or republican, you're voting against your proposal. Neither party is so kind-hearted that they'll cut off the branch they're sitting on!

Right, I think you have to change the dynamics. Voting ought to better capture citizens preferences, it like we vote with one hand tied behind our backs. Why can't we at least rank the candidates?

mozumder 10y ago

Too complicated. Approval voting is much simpler than ranked-choice, and more appropriate for the general public.

snakeboy 10y ago
I would think that given different peoples' standards of "approval", ranked-choice voting is much simpler for the genreal public to grasp, and a more useful metric to base an election on. I suppose we'll see how Maine handers their newly-implemented ranked-choice scheme in the coming election cycles.
- ClayShentrup 10y ago
  Instant Runoff Voting is actually one of the most complicated voting methods. Approval Voting is arguably the simplest. This can be objectively measured via metrics like ballot spoilage and precinct summability. http://scorevoting.net/Lorenzo.html http://scorevoting.net/Lorenzo.html Here's a read-through of a talk I gave on this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2q_eMUGCU5U&t=487 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2q_eMUGCU5U&t=487
kirrent 10y ago
My country has ranked voting. Compulsory ranked voting. No-one seems to have any difficulties with it. What's so hard to understand about rank the candidates in the order that you want them? I did get the chance to flick through a Californian voter information guide for this last election and it seems like if your goal is to make voting simpler then looking at ballot initiatives would be far more useful.
- ClayShentrup 10y ago
  Most of your Australian countrymen want to get rid of ranked voting. http://scorevoting.net/WhatVotersWant http://scorevoting.net/WhatVotersWant Maybe they think it's too complicated.
  - kirrent 10y ago
    The mentioned discussion by Antony Green: http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2011/02/more-australian-surveys-of-the-preferred-voting-system.html http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2011/02/more-australian-... I think his points are pretty good ones. There was a lot of anger and unhappiness after the 2010 election and the role preferences played in it. I'm not going to change my mind entirely on one poll which hasn't ever been repeated when there are valid objections to the question and the signal isn't even that large. You could have polled people on if the electoral college should be gotten rid of after the last US election and you'd probably get a similar sort of polarised answer for the same reasons. More importantly, I don't really care about what people prefer in their voting system. That probably sounds bad, and I think it's important that people trust it but it's a technical answer to the question of how we discover what people want. That's what I care about, which is why I support compulsory voting which ensures a more representative government at the cost of forcing everyone on the rolls to vote. I'm also not some weird person who thinks we have it perfect here. Obviously optional preferential voting in all cases would be better, not just for the federal senate, and Hare-Clark nationwide would be even cooler than that. There's always improvements to be made.
nostrademons 10y ago
The problem with approval voting is that game-theoretically it devolves to plurality voting once everyone understands the system. Approval voting violates the later-no-harm principle: indicating approval for secondary candidates can harm the chance that your primary candidate is elected. Knowing this, why would anyone approve of more than one candidate? http://www.fairvote.org/why-approval-voting-is-unworkable-in-contested-elections http://www.fairvote.org/why-approval-voting-is-unworkable-in...
- ClayShentrup 10y ago
  Absolutely false. Strategic Plurality Voting means NOT voting for your favorite, e.g. a Green voting Democrat. With Approval Voting, that same voter's best strategy is to vote Democrat AND Green. THAT is why you'd vote for more than one candidate. Later-no-harm is a silly "anti-criterion" that causes more harm than benefit. See explanation by a Princeton math PhD who co-founded the Center for Election Science. http://scorevoting.net/LNH.html http://scorevoting.net/LNH.html He refutes similar FairVote FUD here. http://scorevoting.net/RichieRV.html http://scorevoting.net/RichieRV.html FairVote lacks expertise and lies a lot. https://sites.google.com/a/electology.org/www/fact-check https://sites.google.com/a/electology.org/www/fact-check Here's a layman friendly talk I gave to the Colorado League of Women Voters a few years back. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2q_eMUGCU5U&t=487 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2q_eMUGCU5U&t=487
  - state_less 10y ago
    Thanks for posting all this info. In the youtube video, I liked the end where you talked about an objective satisfaction measure for these systems. For someone who wants to be able to provide more preference information at the ballot, and is not married to any particular method, it does make you wonder, why not directly use the objective measure for voting? You'd get a 1-1 correspondence. Wouldn't that maximize satisfaction and the voting method objective function?
    - ClayShentrup 10y ago
      You can't use it for voting because the voting system isn't omniscient. http://scorevoting.net/WhyNoHumans http://scorevoting.net/WhyNoHumans
ericd 10y ago
Ranking by preference isn't exactly hard. Most 18+ year olds can handle it.
- ClayShentrup 10y ago
  There's empirical evidence saying otherwise. http://scorevoting.net/Lorenzo.html http://scorevoting.net/Lorenzo.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2q_eMUGCU5U&t=487 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2q_eMUGCU5U&t=487
  - ericd 10y ago
    Ah I meant not hard to vote your preferences, it can definitely be hard to understand the outcomes. I think you might be right that that's what the parent was talking about. Nice work injecting some research into this thread.

averagewall 10y ago

Because that would empower minor candidates. The parties that are in power aren't going to change the system in a way that disadvantages themselves and perhaps even poses an existential risk. That means if you vote democrat or republican, you're voting against your proposal. Neither party is so kind-hearted that they'll cut off the branch they're sitting on!