7 ms·

Correct me if I am wrong but there are no guarantees this candidate is a compromise. He might be on a whole different political spectrum and agenda.

bunderbunder 8y ago
What I often see in my local election is that 3rd-party candidates are often (not always, but often) very inexperienced, and might have platforms that don't make sense or aren't coherent. I've frequently got serious doubts about their ability to function competently - let alone effectively - in the position they're applying for. With IRV, though, I could see a situation where they are much more likely to win simply because, nowadays, Republicans' and Democrats' general level of mutual disdain is such that I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up being common for people who identify with one major party to rank the candidate from the other major party below every other candidate more-or-less out of spite.
- boomboomsubban 8y ago
  >What I often see in my local election is that 3rd-party candidates are often (not always, but often) very inexperienced, and might have platforms that don't make sense or aren't coherent This is a symptom of our current system. Anybody who has any ambition in politics will modify some of their positions to fit one of the major two parties. If running for another party wasn't a death sentence, you would see more competent candidates in those parties.
  - bunderbunder 8y ago
    Yep. Just trying to think through plausible practical scenarios where IRV might produce a bad outcome. Which is worth doing because, regardless of what the ideal situation is, if it's associated with a spectacularly bad outcome in one of the earlier elections that uses it, that's going to be a big impediment to wider adoption.
- __d 8y ago
  Even in a sharply polarized contest, it's usually the case that most of the "third party" candidates receive fewer first-preference votes than those from the major parties. So the minor parties (and independents) are eliminated first, and their preferences are distributed. Which usually means than one of the major party candidates scrapes over 50%, reflecting the minor party voters' basic preference for one of the major parties over the other. In this (common) situation, I think IRV actually works really well. The major parties still end up in government, but they see the first-preference percentages for the minor parties, and understand what policy positions are important to the electorate.
SilasX 8y ago
... while still being everyone's second choice out of several? Edit: As much as everyone's trashing IRV as "horrible" I don't see a simple, worrisome case where it violates monotonicity; those seem limited to really pathological electorates where nothing will make them happy anyway.
- jboles 8y ago
  Yeah, I'm not sure where the qualms about monotonicity are coming from. In an IRV the lower-ranked preferences do not count until the higher-ranked preferences have already been eliminated for not reaching majority
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Edit: As much as everyone's trashing IRV as "horrible" I don't see a simple, worrisome case where it violates monotonicity; It's terrible because the loser-elimination step that makes non-monotonicity an issue also makes it less straightforward to tabulate, not because non-monotonicity is an issue outside of edge cases.
  - SilasX 8y ago
    Yeah I guess I’m just not really invigorated by fears of “difficulty of tabulation” and “bad behavior on edge cases”. Maybe I react differently from the typical voting system enthusiast?
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > Yeah I guess I’m just not really invigorated by fears of “difficulty of tabulation” and “bad behavior on edge cases”. Difficulty in tabulation affects speed of, certainty of, and confidence in results, as well as cost of implementation. > Maybe I react differently from the typical voting system enthusiast? Nope, especially on neglecting pragmatics like tabulation; that's practically a hallmark of voting system enthusiasts.
      - SilasX 8y ago
jboles 8y ago
What does political spectrum/agenda even have to do with it? The theoretical candidate was everyone's second preference. That sounds like quite a good compromise.
SquirrelOnFire 8y ago
If you and your dining partner rank the kind of restaurants you'd like to go to tonight. You rank 1) Indian 2) Chinese and 3) Italian Your partner ranks 1) Gastropub 2) Chinese and 3) Steakhouse you're going to get Chinese food, not because it exists on a line between each of your first choices, but because it is acceptable to each of you, if not preferred. It is a compromise by definition.
- johnchristopher 8y ago
  That's a compromise by the numbers, not by the nature of the food. Chinese food isn't a compromise, a blend between Italian, Indian, Gatropub and Steakhouse food. In Chinese food there isn't a little bit from every other choices. A candidate being chosen on virtue of a compromise by the numbers doesn't mean s/he aggregates some ideas from other candidates. Hence my remark about that candidate being on a different spectrum from the others. I am not saying he shouldn't be chosen or that people wouldn't be happy about it, I am saying that his ideas aren't a compromise from the other candidates' ideas.
  - SquirrelOnFire 8y ago
    Right. And I'm saying that political positions don't have to fall on a single line either. How many axes can you chart a poltician's positions on? Authoritarian<>Libertarian Traditional Values <> Social Relational Values Survival Values<>Self Expression Values Interventionalist <> isolationist That's just a few from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum Say in the US 2016 election Sanders had run as a 3rd party. He was a liberal populist. He might well have been the second choice of both the Trump and Clinton voters, despite not being positioned between the two. He'd still have been the compromise candidate.
- baddox 8y ago
  Not a great example, because neither you nor your friend probably despise any of those 5 choices, and even if you do, it’s no big deal to just decide to get dinner separately tonight. Remember, political elections are about choosing the candidate or policy that exerts power over everyone in the jurisdiction.

bunderbunder 8y ago

What I often see in my local election is that 3rd-party candidates are often (not always, but often) very inexperienced, and might have platforms that don't make sense or aren't coherent. I've frequently got serious doubts about their ability to function competently - let alone effectively - in the position they're applying for. With IRV, though, I could see a situation where they are much more likely to win simply because, nowadays, Republicans' and Democrats' general level of mutual disdain is such that I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up being common for people who identify with one major party to rank the candidate from the other major party below every other candidate more-or-less out of spite.

boomboomsubban 8y ago
>What I often see in my local election is that 3rd-party candidates are often (not always, but often) very inexperienced, and might have platforms that don't make sense or aren't coherent This is a symptom of our current system. Anybody who has any ambition in politics will modify some of their positions to fit one of the major two parties. If running for another party wasn't a death sentence, you would see more competent candidates in those parties.
- bunderbunder 8y ago
  Yep. Just trying to think through plausible practical scenarios where IRV might produce a bad outcome. Which is worth doing because, regardless of what the ideal situation is, if it's associated with a spectacularly bad outcome in one of the earlier elections that uses it, that's going to be a big impediment to wider adoption.
__d 8y ago
Even in a sharply polarized contest, it's usually the case that most of the "third party" candidates receive fewer first-preference votes than those from the major parties. So the minor parties (and independents) are eliminated first, and their preferences are distributed. Which usually means than one of the major party candidates scrapes over 50%, reflecting the minor party voters' basic preference for one of the major parties over the other. In this (common) situation, I think IRV actually works really well. The major parties still end up in government, but they see the first-preference percentages for the minor parties, and understand what policy positions are important to the electorate.

SilasX 8y ago

... while still being everyone's second choice out of several? Edit: As much as everyone's trashing IRV as "horrible" I don't see a simple, worrisome case where it violates monotonicity; those seem limited to really pathological electorates where nothing will make them happy anyway.

jboles 8y ago
Yeah, I'm not sure where the qualms about monotonicity are coming from. In an IRV the lower-ranked preferences do not count until the higher-ranked preferences have already been eliminated for not reaching majority
dragonwriter 8y ago
> Edit: As much as everyone's trashing IRV as "horrible" I don't see a simple, worrisome case where it violates monotonicity; It's terrible because the loser-elimination step that makes non-monotonicity an issue also makes it less straightforward to tabulate, not because non-monotonicity is an issue outside of edge cases.
- SilasX 8y ago
  Yeah I guess I’m just not really invigorated by fears of “difficulty of tabulation” and “bad behavior on edge cases”. Maybe I react differently from the typical voting system enthusiast?
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Yeah I guess I’m just not really invigorated by fears of “difficulty of tabulation” and “bad behavior on edge cases”. Difficulty in tabulation affects speed of, certainty of, and confidence in results, as well as cost of implementation. > Maybe I react differently from the typical voting system enthusiast? Nope, especially on neglecting pragmatics like tabulation; that's practically a hallmark of voting system enthusiasts.
    - SilasX 8y ago

jboles 8y ago

What does political spectrum/agenda even have to do with it? The theoretical candidate was everyone's second preference. That sounds like quite a good compromise.

SquirrelOnFire 8y ago

If you and your dining partner rank the kind of restaurants you'd like to go to tonight. You rank 1) Indian 2) Chinese and 3) Italian Your partner ranks 1) Gastropub 2) Chinese and 3) Steakhouse you're going to get Chinese food, not because it exists on a line between each of your first choices, but because it is acceptable to each of you, if not preferred. It is a compromise by definition.

johnchristopher 8y ago
That's a compromise by the numbers, not by the nature of the food. Chinese food isn't a compromise, a blend between Italian, Indian, Gatropub and Steakhouse food. In Chinese food there isn't a little bit from every other choices. A candidate being chosen on virtue of a compromise by the numbers doesn't mean s/he aggregates some ideas from other candidates. Hence my remark about that candidate being on a different spectrum from the others. I am not saying he shouldn't be chosen or that people wouldn't be happy about it, I am saying that his ideas aren't a compromise from the other candidates' ideas.
- SquirrelOnFire 8y ago
  Right. And I'm saying that political positions don't have to fall on a single line either. How many axes can you chart a poltician's positions on? Authoritarian<>Libertarian Traditional Values <> Social Relational Values Survival Values<>Self Expression Values Interventionalist <> isolationist That's just a few from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum Say in the US 2016 election Sanders had run as a 3rd party. He was a liberal populist. He might well have been the second choice of both the Trump and Clinton voters, despite not being positioned between the two. He'd still have been the compromise candidate.
baddox 8y ago
Not a great example, because neither you nor your friend probably despise any of those 5 choices, and even if you do, it’s no big deal to just decide to get dinner separately tonight. Remember, political elections are about choosing the candidate or policy that exerts power over everyone in the jurisdiction.