5 ms·

If you want to see how it is complicated, review https://www.rangevoting.org/Burlington.html https://www.rangevoting.org/Burlington.html and (A) see if you even

If you want to see how it is complicated, review https://www.rangevoting.org/Burlington.html https://www.rangevoting.org/Burlington.html and (A) see if you even understand (I've seen people literally deny the basic facts or miss the point if they happen to feel politically happy with the outcome in that one example), (B) see if you can understand the situation enough to explain to someone else what happened and why people see it as a problem. Simply running IRV is easy enough. Understanding it and its ramifications is complex enough that even the majority of IRV advocates don't understand it.

gumby 8y ago
Well of course, Arrow's theorem shows that you can have pathologies in every system. This is also true of every apportionment system as well. As we live in the real world, the point is to choose voting systems that have the best outcome. What are the criteria? - people need to believe it is fair. - it should avoid lop sided results (one party always wins regardless of vote) yet should avoid excessive diffusion (i.e. you don't want to have only fragile coalitions of many small parties). - others, all with the aim of clarity. As there is no magic bullet people use combinations of different systems: - Australian ballot (secret ballot) which most systems use these days; hard to enforce in USA because of first amendment. - quasi-independent apportionment processes/committees (as used in CA, AZ et al) - party lists (not used in USA) or party-plus-candidate (e.g. Germany) - non-party systems (e.g. CA) - multi-candidate districts (not used in the US) - proportional representation (most democracies) or first-past-the-post (most dependents of Westminster). I'm a fan of the latter BTW. - IRV Mix, match, iterate until an overwhelming majority of people are satisfied.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- quadrangle 8y ago
  Arrow's theorem only applies to ranked ballots. But there's another concept that still shows how nothing can be perfect. But really, the question isn't whether pathologies are possible ever, the question is how likely they are. What systems have the best balance to be the most robust while still being practical? STAR Voting and 3-2-1 voting. Definitely not IRV. IRV's pathologies have high enough probability that they do and will continue to show up significantly. Good starting reference from one of the leading voting theorists: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-best-single-winner-voting-method-for-electing-presidents-mayors-or-other-executives https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-best-single-winner-voting-...
  - bscphil 8y ago
    STAR voting is good, but it makes the (IMO) mistake of taking the average rating as each candidate's score. I think it's absolutely crucial in a voting system to make it resilient to manipulation, and that means that taking the median rating (as in Majority Judgement) is the way to go.
    - quadrangle 8y ago
      STAR does NOT make that mistake. I mean, it literally doesn't. It uses the SUM of scores, NOT the mean or the median. But sum is effectively the same result as taking the median.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        Sum is effectively equivalent to mean, not median.
        quadrangle 8y ago
        Well, the main concern most people have with mean is if it ignores abstentions. Sum does not ignore abstentions, they are the same as a marked 0. But you're right that sum is like mean if mean counts all the abstentions as 0's. I'm open to the idea that actually using median is superior. Could you expound on that?
  - gumby 8y ago
    You're just picking one element. People have to understand and believe the system. A system in which you weigh the full set of a:b, a:c, b:c would be too tedious for anything but the board of the mathematical society. If we could only get those pesky humans out of the loop...but we don't.
    - quadrangle 8y ago
      I don't understand why this follows my comment. I agree with you about that weighing challenge, about the humanity… But I don't know what you mean about "picking one element" or understanding or believing. Both STAR and 3-2-1 are quite understandable, believable, and don't require weighing full sets of pairings. That weighing you describe sounds like how Ranked Pairs version of ranked-ballots is done.
UncleMeat 8y ago
A website that continually refers to other people as "propagandists" is not exactly a great sign.
- quadrangle 8y ago
  Totally. Which is why people stop linking to it and generally use better places like https://www.equal.vote/Burlington https://www.equal.vote/Burlington But I chose that link in this case, despite its problems, because it more strongly emphasizes the complexities. FairVote has engaged in really intellectually dishonest arguing, but the level of over-the-top reaction that the rangevoting site does in response comes across poorly and is regretful.

gumby 8y ago

Well of course, Arrow's theorem shows that you can have pathologies in every system. This is also true of every apportionment system as well. As we live in the real world, the point is to choose voting systems that have the best outcome. What are the criteria? - people need to believe it is fair. - it should avoid lop sided results (one party always wins regardless of vote) yet should avoid excessive diffusion (i.e. you don't want to have only fragile coalitions of many small parties). - others, all with the aim of clarity. As there is no magic bullet people use combinations of different systems: - Australian ballot (secret ballot) which most systems use these days; hard to enforce in USA because of first amendment. - quasi-independent apportionment processes/committees (as used in CA, AZ et al) - party lists (not used in USA) or party-plus-candidate (e.g. Germany) - non-party systems (e.g. CA) - multi-candidate districts (not used in the US) - proportional representation (most democracies) or first-past-the-post (most dependents of Westminster). I'm a fan of the latter BTW. - IRV Mix, match, iterate until an overwhelming majority of people are satisfied.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
quadrangle 8y ago
Arrow's theorem only applies to ranked ballots. But there's another concept that still shows how nothing can be perfect. But really, the question isn't whether pathologies are possible ever, the question is how likely they are. What systems have the best balance to be the most robust while still being practical? STAR Voting and 3-2-1 voting. Definitely not IRV. IRV's pathologies have high enough probability that they do and will continue to show up significantly. Good starting reference from one of the leading voting theorists: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-best-single-winner-voting-method-for-electing-presidents-mayors-or-other-executives https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-best-single-winner-voting-...
- bscphil 8y ago
  STAR voting is good, but it makes the (IMO) mistake of taking the average rating as each candidate's score. I think it's absolutely crucial in a voting system to make it resilient to manipulation, and that means that taking the median rating (as in Majority Judgement) is the way to go.
  - quadrangle 8y ago
    STAR does NOT make that mistake. I mean, it literally doesn't. It uses the SUM of scores, NOT the mean or the median. But sum is effectively the same result as taking the median.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      Sum is effectively equivalent to mean, not median.
      - quadrangle 8y ago
        Well, the main concern most people have with mean is if it ignores abstentions. Sum does not ignore abstentions, they are the same as a marked 0. But you're right that sum is like mean if mean counts all the abstentions as 0's. I'm open to the idea that actually using median is superior. Could you expound on that?
- gumby 8y ago
  You're just picking one element. People have to understand and believe the system. A system in which you weigh the full set of a:b, a:c, b:c would be too tedious for anything but the board of the mathematical society. If we could only get those pesky humans out of the loop...but we don't.
  - quadrangle 8y ago
    I don't understand why this follows my comment. I agree with you about that weighing challenge, about the humanity… But I don't know what you mean about "picking one element" or understanding or believing. Both STAR and 3-2-1 are quite understandable, believable, and don't require weighing full sets of pairings. That weighing you describe sounds like how Ranked Pairs version of ranked-ballots is done.

UncleMeat 8y ago

A website that continually refers to other people as "propagandists" is not exactly a great sign.

quadrangle 8y ago
Totally. Which is why people stop linking to it and generally use better places like https://www.equal.vote/Burlington https://www.equal.vote/Burlington But I chose that link in this case, despite its problems, because it more strongly emphasizes the complexities. FairVote has engaged in really intellectually dishonest arguing, but the level of over-the-top reaction that the rangevoting site does in response comes across poorly and is regretful.