4 ms·

I was so surprised that there's more initiatives. It seems Nevada and North Dakota both tried to have things on the ballot but not enough support. Source: http

I was so surprised that there's more initiatives. It seems Nevada and North Dakota both tried to have things on the ballot but not enough support. Source: https://ballotpedia.org/Ranked-choice_voting_(RCV) https://ballotpedia.org/Ranked-choice_voting_(RCV) Section: Ballot Measures 2020

godelski 6y ago
Fargo (ND) actually recently had an election with Approval Voting[0] (which is better at mitigating spoilers, has higher VSE, and is much simpler) [0] https://electionscience.org/commentary-analysis/fargos-first-approval-voting-election-results-and-voter-experience/ https://electionscience.org/commentary-analysis/fargos-first...
- jabl 6y ago
  This! For single-winner elections I think approval voting is the best method. (Score voting is in theory slightly better with non-strategic voters, but in practice many people vote strategically in which case the added complexity isn't worth it)
  - godelski 6y ago
    I mean score collapses into approval, so it isn't that big of a deal. I still prefer STAR of the three but I wouldn't be very vocal about voting math if we have approval because it is good enough for me to shut up except among other nerds.
  - eps 6y ago
    Looked it up just now - Approval voting is basically when you can pick more than one candidate off the list, all with equal weights. The candidate with most votes wins. It is a simple scheme, but it's too simple. In reality a voter will prefer one candidate over others and may have a secondary choice so not to see their vote lost. The approval voting means that if your candidate has a decent chance of winning, you will need to vote for this candidate only and no one else. That is, your voting will depend on how well your candidate is doing. An alternative - if I can't have A, then I want B - is the ranked voting. It maps directly on what a voter wants and it doesn't require adjusting their voting strategy based on the standing of their preferred candidate.
    - godelski 6y ago
      So go range or STAR. The appeal of approval over these is the simplicity while maintaining most properties. I prefer STAR then range then approval. But these are all very close. There's a bigger gap to Condorcet (a class of ranked systems), then big gap to IRV (RCV), then a small gap to FPTP/plurality. There's a lot more to this than than just these simple options. I suggest you look more into the subject before forming strong opinions. The subject is highly complicated and there is no global optima. There's a lot more to be concerned about besides VSE and solving the spoiler effect (which IRV/RCV doesn't do btw). Ranked doesn't actually perfectly map. Consider the case where you like two candidates equally? You can't express this with ordinal systems, but you can with cardinal. There are plenty of non-binary selection systems in cardinal votings that allow for more expressiveness. The thing is that this expressiveness doesn't get you much while it adds complexity (granted, not much). But cardinal systems are also fairly resistant to strategic voting (one of those factors that matters).
      - eps 6y ago
        > Consider the case where you like two candidates equally This is an exceptionally improbable case though. Between two choices there's always one that's better. Unlike when you need to select the worst, when all options may be equally bad.
        jabl 6y ago
        With an ordinal voting method if you vote A > B > C you're stating that the difference between A and B is the same as the difference between B and C. Which is a poor match to reality.
        eps 6y ago
        Still way closer to the reality than A = B = C that you get with the approval voting.
        godelski 6y ago

godelski 6y ago

Fargo (ND) actually recently had an election with Approval Voting[0] (which is better at mitigating spoilers, has higher VSE, and is much simpler) [0] https://electionscience.org/commentary-analysis/fargos-first-approval-voting-election-results-and-voter-experience/ https://electionscience.org/commentary-analysis/fargos-first...

jabl 6y ago
This! For single-winner elections I think approval voting is the best method. (Score voting is in theory slightly better with non-strategic voters, but in practice many people vote strategically in which case the added complexity isn't worth it)
- godelski 6y ago
  I mean score collapses into approval, so it isn't that big of a deal. I still prefer STAR of the three but I wouldn't be very vocal about voting math if we have approval because it is good enough for me to shut up except among other nerds.
- eps 6y ago
  Looked it up just now - Approval voting is basically when you can pick more than one candidate off the list, all with equal weights. The candidate with most votes wins. It is a simple scheme, but it's too simple. In reality a voter will prefer one candidate over others and may have a secondary choice so not to see their vote lost. The approval voting means that if your candidate has a decent chance of winning, you will need to vote for this candidate only and no one else. That is, your voting will depend on how well your candidate is doing. An alternative - if I can't have A, then I want B - is the ranked voting. It maps directly on what a voter wants and it doesn't require adjusting their voting strategy based on the standing of their preferred candidate.
  - godelski 6y ago
    So go range or STAR. The appeal of approval over these is the simplicity while maintaining most properties. I prefer STAR then range then approval. But these are all very close. There's a bigger gap to Condorcet (a class of ranked systems), then big gap to IRV (RCV), then a small gap to FPTP/plurality. There's a lot more to this than than just these simple options. I suggest you look more into the subject before forming strong opinions. The subject is highly complicated and there is no global optima. There's a lot more to be concerned about besides VSE and solving the spoiler effect (which IRV/RCV doesn't do btw). Ranked doesn't actually perfectly map. Consider the case where you like two candidates equally? You can't express this with ordinal systems, but you can with cardinal. There are plenty of non-binary selection systems in cardinal votings that allow for more expressiveness. The thing is that this expressiveness doesn't get you much while it adds complexity (granted, not much). But cardinal systems are also fairly resistant to strategic voting (one of those factors that matters).
    - eps 6y ago
      > Consider the case where you like two candidates equally This is an exceptionally improbable case though. Between two choices there's always one that's better. Unlike when you need to select the worst, when all options may be equally bad.
      - jabl 6y ago
        With an ordinal voting method if you vote A > B > C you're stating that the difference between A and B is the same as the difference between B and C. Which is a poor match to reality.
        eps 6y ago
        Still way closer to the reality than A = B = C that you get with the approval voting.
        godelski 6y ago