5 ms·

Every time the topic of IRV comes up, people immediately wonk out and start debating the pros/cons of Borda, Condorcet and other alternatives to IRV. Even worse

by whack 7y ago

Every time the topic of IRV comes up, people immediately wonk out and start debating the pros/cons of Borda, Condorcet and other alternatives to IRV. Even worse, they start intricately detailing all the ways in which IRV is "bad", relative to other voting systems that they prefer. And then people respond to them with with a long list of reasons as to why their proposed voting system is also bad, and actually worse than IRV. Finally, someone brings up the Arrow impossibility theorem and proves that all voting systems are fundamentally flawed in some way. Can we put our wonk-hats away for a second though and acknowledge something: IRV may not be perfect, but it is heaps better than the current system. Every time we get into a IRV-Borda-Condorcet debate, everyone else tunes out, decides that it's best to just leave things well alone, and nothing ever changes. Are there other voting systems that are better than IRV? Probably. But at this point, IRV is the most credible challenger to the status quo. It is simple, easy to understand, the average joe is open to it, and it has considerable momentum. Instead of tearing it down because it isn't perfect, can we just throw our weight behind it and help it make it a dent in the dysfunctional status quo. Once that happens, we can wonk out as much as we want, and debate what voting system to use in a referendum to determine the ideal voting-system for future elections. But it would be great if we could just focus for now on getting something done.

oehpr 7y ago
British Columbia recently had a referendum on our provincial voting system. The first time we did this, we lost, 60 to 40. 60 on the reform side btw, we needed a super majority. We did another referendum on it it, we lost 50 50. We did it again, this time giving a bunch of options for voting preferences, but first asked "fptp, yes or no?". We lost 60 to 40, 60 against. I am in agreement with the lesson you're talking about. I'll take basically anything over FPTP. I wish we had learned that lesson 10 years ago. Because at this junction, BC is sick of the question being asked, and we're basically stuck with this poisonous voting system forever. A strange coincidence, the party that promised to reform Canada's federal election but deliberately pulled out on the results of the worlds strangest online poll, just got back in to power last day. So not only is reform on it's own nearly impossible, it seems impossible to ask reform of people whom got in to power with FPTP. The people debating the merits of the various voting systems really need to open their eyes to how thoroughly stuck they are with the worst choice.
- vkou 7y ago
  > So not only is reform on it's own nearly impossible, it seems impossible to ask reform of people whom got in to power with FPTP. I mean, it's similar to the problem of reforming a system where the winner of an election gets to pick the winner of the next election. It's not going to happen, without divine intervention.
- kennywinker 7y ago
  “Just got back to power” with a mandate from 21% of eligible voters. Hooray for FPTP :(
  - lambertsimnel 7y ago
    And, also thanks the FPTP, the party with the most votes didn't get the most seats.
    - kennywinker 7y ago
      True, but given that the vast majority of canadians voted for progressive candidates (green, ndp, and liberal) it's unlikely the conservatives would do better under a more fair voting system... in fact a lot of the seats they have are the result of more vote splitting on the left than the right. Edit: i crunched the numbers. If you pool the green + lib + ndp votes from this election, conservatives end up with only 69 seats. The reality probably wouldn't be that bad for them, since some large percentage of Liberal voters would pick Conservatives as their second choice over the NDP or Greens... but it gives you a lower bounds. i.e. they would be somewhere between where they are now and 69 seats.
      - lambertsimnel 7y ago
        That's a fair point, but it's worth noting that FPTP risks vote spitting and handing power to the wrong party. Perhaps they cancelled out in this case, but these problems often don't cancel out. These problems reduce voters' equality, power and choice, even where they do cancel out in terms of election winners.
jefftk 7y ago
> IRV may not be perfect, but it is heaps better than the current system. This is probably not true. If you look at Voter Satisfaction Efficiency [1] if people are voting tactically then IRV actually does worse than the current system. Approval voting is much more robust, and does very well even when people vote tactically. [1] http://electionscience.github.io/vse-sim/VSE/ http://electionscience.github.io/vse-sim/VSE/
- oehpr 7y ago
  That result is a rather strange anomaly. As far as I can tell it's not explained. Given that the system of ranking this is based on a simulation of agents, it may be unwise to jump to any conclusions about what "strategic voting" looks like here.
Terr_ 7y ago
For me, my main schismatic infighting is that "approval voting" ballots might not forward-compatible with ranked systems (IRV, Condorcet, etc.) In other words, if we're going to go through the trouble of upgrading ballots and machines and voter-training, let's at least do so in a way that doesn't close the door on that other universe of possible schemes due to a minor technical limitation.
- lambertsimnel 7y ago
  There's no need for voting machines, at all. As shown in Scotland, it's perfectly practical to hold an STV election with voters ranking candidates by writing numbers on their ballot papers. This can be adapted straightforwardly to approval voting, IRV, etc. Also, Scottish voters use four different multi-winner voting systems, showing that even the problem of voter education isn't insurmountable.
Shivetya 7y ago
Without diluting the abusive level of control the two parties have over the system no change to how you count votes will matter. simply put, the two parties do everything they can to prevent competition including hiding behind dishonest campaign reform proposals to "protect us" where in fact they want to only protect themselves. if anything all campaign reform efforts should only apply to those who hold office, not those who seek to unseat them. from in office politicians having unlimited access to US Mail and nearly unfettered access to media the ability of other parties making a real challenge is near nil. so watch carefully for the tweaks to any proposed changes to voting, redistricting, or reform, because you can guarantee if you read between the lines it all boils down to protecting the two parties
Nition 7y ago
> it is heaps better than the current system Side question, but I'm interested in where you're from. The only country I know of that uses "heaps" like this commonly is New Zealand.
notacoward 7y ago
This sounds exactly like the "electability" arguments for candidates, which is kind of ironic. "Don't vote for Ms. Borda! She might be better but doesn't have a chance. Mr. IRV is the only one who's electable, so hold your nose and vote for IRV!" Nope, doesn't sound any better when it's about voting systems than when it's about candidates. Maybe we shouldn't be all FPTP about which system should replace FPTP.
- concordDance 7y ago
  Unfortunately, the likely way we will choose voting system is FPTP, so we MUST vite strategically. It'll be wat easier to get Borda or whatever once you have a non-FPTP voting system
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
  There are two questions: What method should we use to vote for voting systems? What system should we vote for when we're using FPTP?

by whack 7y ago

oehpr 7y ago

British Columbia recently had a referendum on our provincial voting system. The first time we did this, we lost, 60 to 40. 60 on the reform side btw, we needed a super majority. We did another referendum on it it, we lost 50 50. We did it again, this time giving a bunch of options for voting preferences, but first asked "fptp, yes or no?". We lost 60 to 40, 60 against. I am in agreement with the lesson you're talking about. I'll take basically anything over FPTP. I wish we had learned that lesson 10 years ago. Because at this junction, BC is sick of the question being asked, and we're basically stuck with this poisonous voting system forever. A strange coincidence, the party that promised to reform Canada's federal election but deliberately pulled out on the results of the worlds strangest online poll, just got back in to power last day. So not only is reform on it's own nearly impossible, it seems impossible to ask reform of people whom got in to power with FPTP. The people debating the merits of the various voting systems really need to open their eyes to how thoroughly stuck they are with the worst choice.

vkou 7y ago
> So not only is reform on it's own nearly impossible, it seems impossible to ask reform of people whom got in to power with FPTP. I mean, it's similar to the problem of reforming a system where the winner of an election gets to pick the winner of the next election. It's not going to happen, without divine intervention.
kennywinker 7y ago
“Just got back to power” with a mandate from 21% of eligible voters. Hooray for FPTP :(
- lambertsimnel 7y ago
  And, also thanks the FPTP, the party with the most votes didn't get the most seats.
  - kennywinker 7y ago
    True, but given that the vast majority of canadians voted for progressive candidates (green, ndp, and liberal) it's unlikely the conservatives would do better under a more fair voting system... in fact a lot of the seats they have are the result of more vote splitting on the left than the right. Edit: i crunched the numbers. If you pool the green + lib + ndp votes from this election, conservatives end up with only 69 seats. The reality probably wouldn't be that bad for them, since some large percentage of Liberal voters would pick Conservatives as their second choice over the NDP or Greens... but it gives you a lower bounds. i.e. they would be somewhere between where they are now and 69 seats.
    - lambertsimnel 7y ago
      That's a fair point, but it's worth noting that FPTP risks vote spitting and handing power to the wrong party. Perhaps they cancelled out in this case, but these problems often don't cancel out. These problems reduce voters' equality, power and choice, even where they do cancel out in terms of election winners.

jefftk 7y ago

> IRV may not be perfect, but it is heaps better than the current system. This is probably not true. If you look at Voter Satisfaction Efficiency [1] if people are voting tactically then IRV actually does worse than the current system. Approval voting is much more robust, and does very well even when people vote tactically. [1] http://electionscience.github.io/vse-sim/VSE/ http://electionscience.github.io/vse-sim/VSE/

oehpr 7y ago
That result is a rather strange anomaly. As far as I can tell it's not explained. Given that the system of ranking this is based on a simulation of agents, it may be unwise to jump to any conclusions about what "strategic voting" looks like here.

Terr_ 7y ago

For me, my main schismatic infighting is that "approval voting" ballots might not forward-compatible with ranked systems (IRV, Condorcet, etc.) In other words, if we're going to go through the trouble of upgrading ballots and machines and voter-training, let's at least do so in a way that doesn't close the door on that other universe of possible schemes due to a minor technical limitation.

lambertsimnel 7y ago
There's no need for voting machines, at all. As shown in Scotland, it's perfectly practical to hold an STV election with voters ranking candidates by writing numbers on their ballot papers. This can be adapted straightforwardly to approval voting, IRV, etc. Also, Scottish voters use four different multi-winner voting systems, showing that even the problem of voter education isn't insurmountable.

Shivetya 7y ago

Without diluting the abusive level of control the two parties have over the system no change to how you count votes will matter. simply put, the two parties do everything they can to prevent competition including hiding behind dishonest campaign reform proposals to "protect us" where in fact they want to only protect themselves. if anything all campaign reform efforts should only apply to those who hold office, not those who seek to unseat them. from in office politicians having unlimited access to US Mail and nearly unfettered access to media the ability of other parties making a real challenge is near nil. so watch carefully for the tweaks to any proposed changes to voting, redistricting, or reform, because you can guarantee if you read between the lines it all boils down to protecting the two parties

Nition 7y ago

> it is heaps better than the current system Side question, but I'm interested in where you're from. The only country I know of that uses "heaps" like this commonly is New Zealand.

notacoward 7y ago

This sounds exactly like the "electability" arguments for candidates, which is kind of ironic. "Don't vote for Ms. Borda! She might be better but doesn't have a chance. Mr. IRV is the only one who's electable, so hold your nose and vote for IRV!" Nope, doesn't sound any better when it's about voting systems than when it's about candidates. Maybe we shouldn't be all FPTP about which system should replace FPTP.

concordDance 7y ago
Unfortunately, the likely way we will choose voting system is FPTP, so we MUST vite strategically. It'll be wat easier to get Borda or whatever once you have a non-FPTP voting system
6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
There are two questions: What method should we use to vote for voting systems? What system should we vote for when we're using FPTP?