4 ms·
Here's the problem though; IRV doesn't really do the thing you want it to. It can actually make an extreme candidate win even when voter opinion is centered aro
by xvedejas 8y ago
Here's the problem though; IRV doesn't really do the thing you want it to. It can actually make an extreme candidate win even when voter opinion is centered around a moderate candidate. It's very obvious in this visualization (from the site linked a few comments ago): http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/54,47_77,64_13,10_irv.png http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/54,47_77,64_13,10_irv.png
- ChristianBundy 8y ago> It's very obvious in this visualization (from the site linked a few comments ago): http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/54,47_77,64_13,10_irv.png http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/54,47_77,64_13,10_irv.png Just a friendly note: this visualization means nothing without context, and is far from "obvious". Unfortunately, I'd place this in the category of "things that are obvious to people who already believe it". Is there a better way to go about explaining your idea?
- xvedejas 8y agoSorry, I should have mentioned again the above link, which provides context: http://zesty.ca/voting/sim http://zesty.ca/voting/sim To paraphrase, this is a simulation which places candidates and voters on a two-parameter preference space. This is useful because two dimensions are easy to visualize, but the same intuitions apply to higher-dimensional spaces. Each point is colored to answer "which candidate wins when the popular opinion is normally distributed about this point?". That means the fractured visualization shows IRV's non-monotonicity, and how even when popular opinion is close to a centrist candidate (here in red) it might be that the voting system results in the election of an extreme candidate (green).
- tree_of_item 8y agoWhat is obvious about that image?