3 ms·
> 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 m
by 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 agoOh 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.