3 ms·

I like IRV, but it leads to longer ballots and more-complicated voter ranking decisions, and hard-to-predict results in corner cases. I'd prefer a variant I've

by gojomo 8y ago

I like IRV, but it leads to longer ballots and more-complicated voter ranking decisions, and hard-to-predict results in corner cases. I'd prefer a variant I've not seen discussed elsewhere, but I'll call "Candidate-Delegated Instant Runoff Voting". Rather than allowing each voter to supply a unique 2nd, 3rd, etc choice, each candidate may select another candidate that's considered the "next choice" of 'their' voters, if the selecting candidate is eliminated. They'd have to irrevocably declare this "backup choice" before voting started. That is: each voter still only selects a single candidate. But in the event that candidate is eliminated, there's a predictable, known-before-hand other candidate to whom their votes get re-assigned in the instant-runoff. There's greater predictability as to who will be helped by a certain vote, and the full result is calculable from the 1st tally of direct votes (or somewhat forecastable from an accurate pre-election poll of voters' top choices).

lotyrin 8y ago
Not sure why this wouldn't devolve into the same two party game theory you get with FPTP -- Vote for Greater Evil with a runoff to Actual Satan vs Lesser Evil with runoff to Milquetoast Sockpuppet.
- gojomo 8y ago
  Like IRV, it’d help address the ‘spoiler’ issue where an emerging constituency is essentially penalized for growing strength, by sabotaging the major party closest to them. This, and IRV, instead gives them positive influence in proportion to their growing strength. As such, also like IRV, it doesn’t totally end tendencies towards two major parties. Even fully proportionate representation systems often trend that way, and such coalitions aren’t all bad: they help sinplify choices, making the outsones of elections more gradual and predictable, and make it more likely some stable coalition that together represents a plausible majority can form a working government. But it still creates new competitiveness around the edges, that single-member plurality suppresses.
jacques_chester 8y ago
Australian Senate elections allow voters to vote "above the line" or "below the line". When voting above the line they mark one box for a political party, their vote will thereafter be distributed according to preferences registered at the electoral commission. If they vote below the line, they fill out what exact preference they prefer. This is a pragmatic compromise. The Senate elected on a proportional system, each party nominates up to 6 candidates and so their will frequently be hundreds of candidates to be numbered (the ballots are sometimes nicknamed "the tablecloths"). Voting in the House of Representatives does not have above the line voting, as it isn't a practical necessity.
ekimekim 8y ago
This somewhat exists in the Australian system. A candidate and their workers hand out "How to Vote" cards at the polling places, which tell voters "I want you to put me #1, my mate #2, and those evil <opposition party> #10. Oh, and put this guy you totally disagree with #4 because I made a deal with him to do the same for me. Oh and put this guy #5, he paid me a lot of money. etc etc"

by gojomo 8y ago

lotyrin 8y ago

Not sure why this wouldn't devolve into the same two party game theory you get with FPTP -- Vote for Greater Evil with a runoff to Actual Satan vs Lesser Evil with runoff to Milquetoast Sockpuppet.

gojomo 8y ago
Like IRV, it’d help address the ‘spoiler’ issue where an emerging constituency is essentially penalized for growing strength, by sabotaging the major party closest to them. This, and IRV, instead gives them positive influence in proportion to their growing strength. As such, also like IRV, it doesn’t totally end tendencies towards two major parties. Even fully proportionate representation systems often trend that way, and such coalitions aren’t all bad: they help sinplify choices, making the outsones of elections more gradual and predictable, and make it more likely some stable coalition that together represents a plausible majority can form a working government. But it still creates new competitiveness around the edges, that single-member plurality suppresses.

jacques_chester 8y ago

Australian Senate elections allow voters to vote "above the line" or "below the line". When voting above the line they mark one box for a political party, their vote will thereafter be distributed according to preferences registered at the electoral commission. If they vote below the line, they fill out what exact preference they prefer. This is a pragmatic compromise. The Senate elected on a proportional system, each party nominates up to 6 candidates and so their will frequently be hundreds of candidates to be numbered (the ballots are sometimes nicknamed "the tablecloths"). Voting in the House of Representatives does not have above the line voting, as it isn't a practical necessity.

ekimekim 8y ago

This somewhat exists in the Australian system. A candidate and their workers hand out "How to Vote" cards at the polling places, which tell voters "I want you to put me #1, my mate #2, and those evil <opposition party> #10. Oh, and put this guy you totally disagree with #4 because I made a deal with him to do the same for me. Oh and put this guy #5, he paid me a lot of money. etc etc"