5 ms·

I'm going to have to spend some time reading over your reference when I have the free time, since it looks quite interesting. But I can already tell you by the

I'm going to have to spend some time reading over your reference when I have the free time, since it looks quite interesting. But I can already tell you by the complexity of what that article is trying to show that most people won't understand it and won't care. When I vote, it's in part to declare what I want and what I believe in. I generally don't like Democrats and I don't like Republicans. If I want to vote for the Green Party candidate, then I want to vote for the Green Party candidate and make it known that that's who I want to win. I don't want to be stating that I equally approve of both the Green Party candidate and the Democratic candidate since that doesn't accurately represent my opinion. Given that the Green Party candidate is not going to win, I generally vastly prefer the Democratic candidate to the Republican candidate, even if I don't like the Democratic candidate one bit. I don't want to vote in a way in which my statement is that I equally prefer the Democratic candidate to Green Party candidate. I want to vote in a way that states, "I want the Green Party candidate to win. And if I can't have that, I'll reluctantly settle for the Democratic candidate over the Republican candidate." Voting in a way in which one's desires are clearly indicated is what most people would want, I imagine, even if it has some counterintuitive results at times. Also, at least on a cursory reading, it seems that the author of the article has a bias towards "moderate" candidates winning. Who says that I want a moderate candidate to win? I want some serious progressive change!

CarVac 8y ago
It's not that the author is biased towards moderate candidates; the author wants the moderate candidate to win when the mean of the population's normally distributed political beliefs lie closest to the moderate candidate. The posit is that the spoiler effect is bad: Fielding an additional extreme candidate on one side should not be helpful to the other side.
- nessus42 8y ago
  Well, I really should read the article you cite because it looks interesting, but take this example: There are three candidates: Republican, Democrat, and Green. 60% of the population wants the Green candidate to win, but will settle for the Democrat reluctantly. They absolutely, positively do not want the Republican to win. 40% of the population wants the Republican to win but under no circumstance wants the Green candidate to win. So with Instant Runoff elections, the majority gets their wish. The Green Candidate wins. With Approval Voting, 60% of the people vote the Green Party Candidate, 40% of the people vote for the Republican Party Candidate, and 100% of the people vote for the Democratic Candidate. The Democratic candidate wins. I don't see how this is a win for Approval Voting. The candidate that wins is a candidate that no one really wanted. Well, clearly my example is rather contrived, but I suspect (perhaps out of ignorance) that any situation in which Instant Runoff would cause counter-intuitive results is also rather unlikely. I'll definitely have to look at your reference, though. I do find such issues very interesting
tastyfreeze 8y ago
There is a video demonstrating the simulations posted on the OPs reference. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4FXLQoLDBA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4FXLQoLDBA The video was created by the Equal Vote Coalition. They also have some good information on their site. https://www.equal.vote/ https://www.equal.vote/
Joakal 8y ago
I know of two simple ways to vote: Preferential voting. If your sincere choice (ie Greens) didn't win, your vote goes toward the second choice until a candidate gets clear majority. Proportional voting, people can vote for their sincere choice and there's a pool of 10 representatives. That means each candidate needs at least 10% of vote. If over 10% people in the state for Greens but rest vote for Democrats/Republicans. Thats 1 Greens and 9 Democrats/Republicans. In USA, it is not possible to have a sincere choice. Also known as the illusion of choice.
- beaconstudios 8y ago
  your first option is seemingly the same as IRV.
diogenescynic 8y ago
We need to get rid of closed primaries and first past the post voting—those lead to more partisan and ideological candidates. Replacing the electoral college with a popular vote would also help.
- aaron_m04 8y ago
  Out of all the elected officials who have the power to help change the voting system, how many benefit from the current voting system (first past the post)? All of them, right?
  - mikeash 8y ago
    It is possible to get politicians to make changes to things that benefit them. It's hard, it takes a lot of pressure and a lot of work, but it can be done. Keep in mind that our system has changed a great deal already (e.g. women and non-whites being allowed to vote), the politicians at the time benefitted greatly from how things were set up before, but those changes were still accomplished. We shouldn't give up on the idea of reform just because politicians would resist it.
    - aaron_m04 8y ago
      Thanks, that gives me hope.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Out of all the elected officials who have the power to help change the voting system Elected officials are initially largely irrelevant, changes to the voting system will start with state-level voter initiatives. Pretty much everything worth doing to voting systems aside from (1) replacing or reforming the electoral college, and (2) moving away from mandatory single-member districts in the House of Representatives, can be done entirely there in many states without elected officials being involved except in their ministerial role in certifying the results and implementing the dictated policies.
    - 8y ago
empath75 8y ago
> If I want to vote for the Green Party candidate, then I want to vote for the Green Party candidate and make it known that that's who I want to win. I don't want to be stating that I equally approve of both the Green Party candidate and the Democratic candidate since that doesn't accurately represent my opinion. I'd probably check off both, personally, because I don't care. See, the system works!
dTal 8y ago
Well, right now, the system only lets you express that you prefer the Democratic candidate, to the exclusion of the Green Party candidate, unless you want to 'throw your vote away'. So it seems that approval voting still represents an improvement over the current state of the art. It warrants consideration as to whether it's worth making the perfect the enemy of the good in this issue.
- ClayShentrup 8y ago
  Approval voting is robustly superior to ranked choice. http://www.electology.org/approval-voting-vs-irv http://www.electology.org/approval-voting-vs-irv
ClayShentrup 8y ago
> I don't want to vote in a way in which my statement is that I equally prefer the Democratic candidate to Green Party candidate. This is a pervasive logical fallacy, we call the "expressiveness fallacy". https://sites.google.com/a/electology.org/www/expressiveness https://sites.google.com/a/electology.org/www/expressiveness In short, you could allow partial approvals (1/4, 1/3, etc.), or mathematically equivalent ratings on a 0-N scale. But Approval Voting behaves almost as well in aggregate. http://scorevoting.net/BayRegsFig.html http://scorevoting.net/BayRegsFig.html And IRV/RCV will maintain two-party duopoly. https://asitoughttobe.com/2010/07/18/score-voting/ https://asitoughttobe.com/2010/07/18/score-voting/ Voting theory is highly counterintuitive.
- r00fus 8y ago
  I'm not sure I follow your "IRV favors duopoly" article. I looked at the data, and it's analysis and facts don't match. Kiss is the clear winner in Burlington 2009 almost any way you slice it.
  - ClayShentrup 8y ago
    Nope. Montroll is preferred to both rivals by a huge majority. http://scorevoting.net/Burlington.html#UngerApp http://scorevoting.net/Burlington.html#UngerApp
- AstralStorm 8y ago
  Expressiveness fallacy is averted if you use global scales and score system instead of ranking system. E.g. Majority Judgement. It is not exactly counterintuitive that aggregated orderings have problems - the problems relate to the fact that ordering cannot be averaged and ties are not allowed. The latter problem also happens in the oldest score system called Bucklin voting. Approval voting is essentially 0-1 score voting system with ties.
  - ClayShentrup 8y ago
    Majority Judgement is severely flawed compared to Score Voting and Approval Voting. http://scorevoting.net/MedianVrange http://scorevoting.net/MedianVrange

CarVac 8y ago

It's not that the author is biased towards moderate candidates; the author wants the moderate candidate to win when the mean of the population's normally distributed political beliefs lie closest to the moderate candidate. The posit is that the spoiler effect is bad: Fielding an additional extreme candidate on one side should not be helpful to the other side.

nessus42 8y ago
Well, I really should read the article you cite because it looks interesting, but take this example: There are three candidates: Republican, Democrat, and Green. 60% of the population wants the Green candidate to win, but will settle for the Democrat reluctantly. They absolutely, positively do not want the Republican to win. 40% of the population wants the Republican to win but under no circumstance wants the Green candidate to win. So with Instant Runoff elections, the majority gets their wish. The Green Candidate wins. With Approval Voting, 60% of the people vote the Green Party Candidate, 40% of the people vote for the Republican Party Candidate, and 100% of the people vote for the Democratic Candidate. The Democratic candidate wins. I don't see how this is a win for Approval Voting. The candidate that wins is a candidate that no one really wanted. Well, clearly my example is rather contrived, but I suspect (perhaps out of ignorance) that any situation in which Instant Runoff would cause counter-intuitive results is also rather unlikely. I'll definitely have to look at your reference, though. I do find such issues very interesting

tastyfreeze 8y ago

There is a video demonstrating the simulations posted on the OPs reference. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4FXLQoLDBA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4FXLQoLDBA The video was created by the Equal Vote Coalition. They also have some good information on their site. https://www.equal.vote/ https://www.equal.vote/

Joakal 8y ago

I know of two simple ways to vote: Preferential voting. If your sincere choice (ie Greens) didn't win, your vote goes toward the second choice until a candidate gets clear majority. Proportional voting, people can vote for their sincere choice and there's a pool of 10 representatives. That means each candidate needs at least 10% of vote. If over 10% people in the state for Greens but rest vote for Democrats/Republicans. Thats 1 Greens and 9 Democrats/Republicans. In USA, it is not possible to have a sincere choice. Also known as the illusion of choice.

beaconstudios 8y ago
your first option is seemingly the same as IRV.

diogenescynic 8y ago

We need to get rid of closed primaries and first past the post voting—those lead to more partisan and ideological candidates. Replacing the electoral college with a popular vote would also help.

aaron_m04 8y ago
Out of all the elected officials who have the power to help change the voting system, how many benefit from the current voting system (first past the post)? All of them, right?
- mikeash 8y ago
  It is possible to get politicians to make changes to things that benefit them. It's hard, it takes a lot of pressure and a lot of work, but it can be done. Keep in mind that our system has changed a great deal already (e.g. women and non-whites being allowed to vote), the politicians at the time benefitted greatly from how things were set up before, but those changes were still accomplished. We shouldn't give up on the idea of reform just because politicians would resist it.
  - aaron_m04 8y ago
    Thanks, that gives me hope.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Out of all the elected officials who have the power to help change the voting system Elected officials are initially largely irrelevant, changes to the voting system will start with state-level voter initiatives. Pretty much everything worth doing to voting systems aside from (1) replacing or reforming the electoral college, and (2) moving away from mandatory single-member districts in the House of Representatives, can be done entirely there in many states without elected officials being involved except in their ministerial role in certifying the results and implementing the dictated policies.
  - 8y ago

empath75 8y ago

> If I want to vote for the Green Party candidate, then I want to vote for the Green Party candidate and make it known that that's who I want to win. I don't want to be stating that I equally approve of both the Green Party candidate and the Democratic candidate since that doesn't accurately represent my opinion. I'd probably check off both, personally, because I don't care. See, the system works!

dTal 8y ago

Well, right now, the system only lets you express that you prefer the Democratic candidate, to the exclusion of the Green Party candidate, unless you want to 'throw your vote away'. So it seems that approval voting still represents an improvement over the current state of the art. It warrants consideration as to whether it's worth making the perfect the enemy of the good in this issue.

ClayShentrup 8y ago
Approval voting is robustly superior to ranked choice. http://www.electology.org/approval-voting-vs-irv http://www.electology.org/approval-voting-vs-irv

ClayShentrup 8y ago

> I don't want to vote in a way in which my statement is that I equally prefer the Democratic candidate to Green Party candidate. This is a pervasive logical fallacy, we call the "expressiveness fallacy". https://sites.google.com/a/electology.org/www/expressiveness https://sites.google.com/a/electology.org/www/expressiveness In short, you could allow partial approvals (1/4, 1/3, etc.), or mathematically equivalent ratings on a 0-N scale. But Approval Voting behaves almost as well in aggregate. http://scorevoting.net/BayRegsFig.html http://scorevoting.net/BayRegsFig.html And IRV/RCV will maintain two-party duopoly. https://asitoughttobe.com/2010/07/18/score-voting/ https://asitoughttobe.com/2010/07/18/score-voting/ Voting theory is highly counterintuitive.

r00fus 8y ago
I'm not sure I follow your "IRV favors duopoly" article. I looked at the data, and it's analysis and facts don't match. Kiss is the clear winner in Burlington 2009 almost any way you slice it.
- ClayShentrup 8y ago
  Nope. Montroll is preferred to both rivals by a huge majority. http://scorevoting.net/Burlington.html#UngerApp http://scorevoting.net/Burlington.html#UngerApp
AstralStorm 8y ago
Expressiveness fallacy is averted if you use global scales and score system instead of ranking system. E.g. Majority Judgement. It is not exactly counterintuitive that aggregated orderings have problems - the problems relate to the fact that ordering cannot be averaged and ties are not allowed. The latter problem also happens in the oldest score system called Bucklin voting. Approval voting is essentially 0-1 score voting system with ties.
- ClayShentrup 8y ago
  Majority Judgement is severely flawed compared to Score Voting and Approval Voting. http://scorevoting.net/MedianVrange http://scorevoting.net/MedianVrange