3 ms·

Straight IRV is an improvement in that it removes the third-party candidate spoiler effect and the incentive for negative campaigning, yes, but it can actually

Straight IRV is an improvement in that it removes the third-party candidate spoiler effect and the incentive for negative campaigning, yes, but it can actually make results less proportional than FPTP. What's needed isn't just IRV but STV - think IRV but districts grouped together and multiple winners. That way, you can actually get results that are proportional to the votes cast because the difference between a narrow win and a landslide changes who gets elected down the ticket.

xvedejas 8y ago
The multi-winner system that appeals the most to me is either range (score) or approval voting, with seats allocated proportionally. Unlike STV, it would be possible to support or oppose as many candidates/parties as the voter wants simultaneously. And so it avoids some of the nasty properties of IRV and STV.
- eftpotrm 8y ago
  There's no problem with opposing candidates in IRV / STV - you just rank them at the back of the list. I can't claim to be an expert on all the finer points of STV versus range or approval voting, but it's significant to me that the Electoral Reform Society (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_Reform_Society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_Reform_Society) continue to back STV.
  - xvedejas 8y ago
    It's not obvious to me that all the information about your ranking gets percolated up to the final decision, especially since your middle rankings can disappear without warning during intermediate stages. If you can't do anything to prevent your #2 from getting eliminated, might as well rank them last as far as the system matters.
    - singingboyo 8y ago
      One very important part of getting STV to work well is the quota - if a candidate has enough votes to guarantee that they would be elected (so, for a 3-seat district, 25%+1 of votes) then additional votes should be transferred BEFORE eliminating any candidates. Some systems do this randomly (randomly choose ballots and take the next preference), and some do this fractionally (e.g. transferred votes are worth whatever fraction wasn't needed to elect their previous choices). Overall, though, the point is that if your middle choice is eliminated, then either your vote wasn't enough, or a previous choice needed your support already. That said, most systems 'skip' over previously elected candidates as well. Strictly speaking, doing that can mean ballots with a losing first candidate are more powerful than ballots where the first candidate is elected by a narrow margin[1]. That said, as per the wiki link, there's a solution (recalculate all instead of skipping previously elected) and tactical voting around that issue isn't seen in practice anyway. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issues_affecting_the_single_transferable_vote#Tactical_voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issues_affecting_the_single_tr...
      - xvedejas 8y ago
        It is possible to have a quota in the range voting system I imagine. And, well, it's simpler.
pitaj 8y ago
You should really expand an acronym when you first use it. STV = Single Transferable Vote

xvedejas 8y ago

The multi-winner system that appeals the most to me is either range (score) or approval voting, with seats allocated proportionally. Unlike STV, it would be possible to support or oppose as many candidates/parties as the voter wants simultaneously. And so it avoids some of the nasty properties of IRV and STV.

eftpotrm 8y ago
There's no problem with opposing candidates in IRV / STV - you just rank them at the back of the list. I can't claim to be an expert on all the finer points of STV versus range or approval voting, but it's significant to me that the Electoral Reform Society (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_Reform_Society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_Reform_Society) continue to back STV.
- xvedejas 8y ago
  It's not obvious to me that all the information about your ranking gets percolated up to the final decision, especially since your middle rankings can disappear without warning during intermediate stages. If you can't do anything to prevent your #2 from getting eliminated, might as well rank them last as far as the system matters.
  - singingboyo 8y ago
    One very important part of getting STV to work well is the quota - if a candidate has enough votes to guarantee that they would be elected (so, for a 3-seat district, 25%+1 of votes) then additional votes should be transferred BEFORE eliminating any candidates. Some systems do this randomly (randomly choose ballots and take the next preference), and some do this fractionally (e.g. transferred votes are worth whatever fraction wasn't needed to elect their previous choices). Overall, though, the point is that if your middle choice is eliminated, then either your vote wasn't enough, or a previous choice needed your support already. That said, most systems 'skip' over previously elected candidates as well. Strictly speaking, doing that can mean ballots with a losing first candidate are more powerful than ballots where the first candidate is elected by a narrow margin[1]. That said, as per the wiki link, there's a solution (recalculate all instead of skipping previously elected) and tactical voting around that issue isn't seen in practice anyway. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issues_affecting_the_single_transferable_vote#Tactical_voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issues_affecting_the_single_tr...
    - xvedejas 8y ago
      It is possible to have a quota in the range voting system I imagine. And, well, it's simpler.

pitaj 8y ago

You should really expand an acronym when you first use it. STV = Single Transferable Vote