4 ms·

> I'd argue that plurality is only slightly simpler I've actually heard it argued that Approval is simpler (for the voter) because all valid FPTP ballots are v

> I'd argue that plurality is only slightly simpler I've actually heard it argued that Approval is simpler (for the voter) because all valid FPTP ballots are valid in Approval, but not the converse. There is definitely some benefit to a system that makes invalid ballots less likely (although that doesn't guarantee that the voter's intention is captured). The difference in complexity for counting ballots, however, should not be understated. For elections with a paper trail, if you are putting each ballot in a single pile with other similar ballots, then Approval voting can require hundreds of piles. This can delay the process and add to the cost. Jurisdictions which rely on electronic vote counting can avoid this, but that introduces its own trust/legitimacy problems.

godelski 6y ago
> I've actually heard it argued that Approval is simpler (for the voter) because all valid FPTP ballots are valid in Approval, but not the converse. Voting systems can actually be optimal in two candidate systems. It is when you introduce more candidates that things get complex. > For elections with a paper trail, if you are putting each ballot in a single pile with other similar ballots, then Approval voting can require hundreds of piles. This would be poor counting. You need the same number of ballots as FPTP. You just sum multiple columns instead of a single column. The process isn't much different. This is actually the major advantage of approval over even other simple but better systems like score or STAR. It is dead simple to count and understand. Compare any of these to IRV/RCV (what the post is about) and they've got huge complexity problems. But Ireland is able to handle the many rounds of counting you need for IRV and they do it with paper ballots. Remember that Ireland and Australia already have IRV and I'm pretty sure Australia didn't have computers a hundred years ago. (I don't advocate for IRV btw)
- dane-pgp 6y ago
  > This would be poor counting. You need the same number of ballots as FPTP. You just sum multiple columns instead of a single column. I'm not saying you need more ballots to implement Approval voting, I'm saying that FPTP has the nice property (when counting paper ballots) that the votes can be put into piles, where the weight of each pile is roughly proportional to the number of votes for the candidate whose votes are in that pile. Of course, FPTP votes aren't actually counted using measuring scales, but the fact that this isn't possible with Approval voting is an indication that "just sum multiple columns" is a slightly more laborious and error-prone step than you make it sound, at least for humans counting paper ballots (which I believe is a necessary property of trustworthy elections).
  - godelski 6y ago
    Oh I see what you're saying. But I will point out that they successfully do IRV with paper ballots which includes many rounds of moving said ballots around. You wouldn't have nice piles with Approval, but it wouldn't be too hard. You're always going to have to add a little complexity to get benefits. The thing though is that Approval is the least amount of complexity we can add, and it gives surprisingly a lot of benefits. Maybe sorting would be a little more straight forward with Score or STAR voting since you can bin them on the highest score. These do have more benefits too and are actually preferred over Approval.

godelski 6y ago

> I've actually heard it argued that Approval is simpler (for the voter) because all valid FPTP ballots are valid in Approval, but not the converse. Voting systems can actually be optimal in two candidate systems. It is when you introduce more candidates that things get complex. > For elections with a paper trail, if you are putting each ballot in a single pile with other similar ballots, then Approval voting can require hundreds of piles. This would be poor counting. You need the same number of ballots as FPTP. You just sum multiple columns instead of a single column. The process isn't much different. This is actually the major advantage of approval over even other simple but better systems like score or STAR. It is dead simple to count and understand. Compare any of these to IRV/RCV (what the post is about) and they've got huge complexity problems. But Ireland is able to handle the many rounds of counting you need for IRV and they do it with paper ballots. Remember that Ireland and Australia already have IRV and I'm pretty sure Australia didn't have computers a hundred years ago. (I don't advocate for IRV btw)

dane-pgp 6y ago
> This would be poor counting. You need the same number of ballots as FPTP. You just sum multiple columns instead of a single column. I'm not saying you need more ballots to implement Approval voting, I'm saying that FPTP has the nice property (when counting paper ballots) that the votes can be put into piles, where the weight of each pile is roughly proportional to the number of votes for the candidate whose votes are in that pile. Of course, FPTP votes aren't actually counted using measuring scales, but the fact that this isn't possible with Approval voting is an indication that "just sum multiple columns" is a slightly more laborious and error-prone step than you make it sound, at least for humans counting paper ballots (which I believe is a necessary property of trustworthy elections).
- godelski 6y ago
  Oh I see what you're saying. But I will point out that they successfully do IRV with paper ballots which includes many rounds of moving said ballots around. You wouldn't have nice piles with Approval, but it wouldn't be too hard. You're always going to have to add a little complexity to get benefits. The thing though is that Approval is the least amount of complexity we can add, and it gives surprisingly a lot of benefits. Maybe sorting would be a little more straight forward with Score or STAR voting since you can bin them on the highest score. These do have more benefits too and are actually preferred over Approval.