5 ms·

> Could it be done with tech? Uh, as shown in numerous democratic countries like Norway and other European countries, you don't need tech for this. You just ne

by y7 6y ago

> Could it be done with tech? Uh, as shown in numerous democratic countries like Norway and other European countries, you don't need tech for this. You just need something that isn't first-past-the-post.

yunruse 6y ago
One great way to fix this which preserves FPTP (if there's a culture for which replacing it is seen as too much change, or too complex) is FPTP with a run-off vote for the final two candidates, allowing for variety while also keeping the voting system pretty much unchanged, albeit there's now a possible second vote. In the 2017 French presidential elections, we hear so much about Macron and Le Pen, but they only made up about 45% of the vote in the first round.
- nicoburns 6y ago
  That doesn't really change much though, because it still allows geographical distribution of votes (between constituencies) to greatly influence the results. It's better than nothing, but not much.
- dane-pgp 6y ago
  You're right to point out that attempts at electoral reform often fail because of issues of "too much change, or too complex" (even if those are narratives that are disingenuously pushed to trigger the illusory truth effect in citizens' minds). Given the failures of campaigns in the UK and Canada to change the voting system, I think that a requirement for proposed systems has to be that the ballot papers (and voter instructions) must be the same as FPTP, and the constituency/district boundaries (and number of representatives) have to stay unaltered too. That may seem like too stringent a set of requirements, but as you say, a top-two run-off system does satisfy them. Unfortunately, such a system can still be attacked on the basis of cost, since having two election days is roughly twice as expensive as having just one. Not only is there the administrative cost to the government, but the time cost for voters themselves. The only remaining solution that I have found is Asset Voting, in which votes are cast and tallied just as in FPTP, but then the candidate with the fewest votes gets to reassign their votes to one of the remaining candidates, with this process repeating until a candidate has a majority. This should remove the problems of spoiler candidates and tactical voting.
  - pjc50 6y ago
    This is a political problem and not a technical one. The UK already uses STV, D'Hondt, and AMS in various elections. There is no campaign to change those to FPTP. The reason we can't change the Westminster voting system is exactly the reason we want it: because it would disrupt the existing party alignment and power structure. Same reason we still have an entirely unelected legislative house. The same, presumably, applies in America. Parties are willing to sabotage elections altogether there rather than risk making them fairer.
    - dane-pgp 6y ago
      > There is no campaign to change those to FPTP. That depends what you mean by "campaign"[0] (or "is", I suppose[1]). We saw in the 2019 election that individual MPs[2] and even the parties themselves[3] were willing to create electoral alliances for a single issue goal. It is not inconceivable then that an alliance could be formed (perhaps in the aftermath of a hung parliament, or in the run up to a close election) where MPs agreed to introduce a voting system which made the minimum possible change to the existing procedure while also making all future "standing down candidates" alliances unnecessary. [0] https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/the-conservatives-just-pledged-to-take-our-democracy-back-decades/ https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/the-conservatives-just-p... [1] https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/latest-news-and-research/media-centre/press-releases/conservative-manifesto-ers-warn-against-undemocratic-voter-id-plans-but-welcome-u-turn-on-pledge-to-impose-first-past-the-post/ https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/latest-news-and-research... [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50398820 https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50398820 [3] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/07/lib-dems-greens-and-plaid-cymru-reveal-remain-election-pact https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/07/lib-dems-gr...
- jfengel 6y ago
  We already have that in the US. We just call it "primaries" and "general election". It's not quite a completely open first round, but it's not uncommon for an outsider to come in and win the support of a party without any prior experience with it. I don't think it makes Americans happy.
  - jdashg 6y ago
    The separate primaries make it a wildly different game. True run-off (common primary) is used in some states, such as California. In the case where one party wins both run-off slots, the system naturally selects the moderate. Great! However, in a two-party "run-off", the sides are pressured to polarize and rile up their voters. It's a very different game!
    - jfengel 6y ago
      It's different, but I don't think it's as different as you say. It's still a two stage process, and the primaries are generally open to anybody. The pressure to rile up voters exists either way. You saw this in the UK recently, where there are plenty of parties, and the election was incredibly awful. The winner of the election was, as usual, the one that had eliminated the second, third, and fourth parties that split the vote. I'm not saying there aren't differences, but I think it might help Americans to think of it as if it were more similar. They cast one vote, and if their candidate lost, they get to vote for their second favorite. It's not identical to a runoff election, but there are enough similarities to make me believe that a change to true runoff elections would not alter how people perceive the result.

by y7 6y ago

yunruse 6y ago

One great way to fix this which preserves FPTP (if there's a culture for which replacing it is seen as too much change, or too complex) is FPTP with a run-off vote for the final two candidates, allowing for variety while also keeping the voting system pretty much unchanged, albeit there's now a possible second vote. In the 2017 French presidential elections, we hear so much about Macron and Le Pen, but they only made up about 45% of the vote in the first round.

nicoburns 6y ago
That doesn't really change much though, because it still allows geographical distribution of votes (between constituencies) to greatly influence the results. It's better than nothing, but not much.
dane-pgp 6y ago
You're right to point out that attempts at electoral reform often fail because of issues of "too much change, or too complex" (even if those are narratives that are disingenuously pushed to trigger the illusory truth effect in citizens' minds). Given the failures of campaigns in the UK and Canada to change the voting system, I think that a requirement for proposed systems has to be that the ballot papers (and voter instructions) must be the same as FPTP, and the constituency/district boundaries (and number of representatives) have to stay unaltered too. That may seem like too stringent a set of requirements, but as you say, a top-two run-off system does satisfy them. Unfortunately, such a system can still be attacked on the basis of cost, since having two election days is roughly twice as expensive as having just one. Not only is there the administrative cost to the government, but the time cost for voters themselves. The only remaining solution that I have found is Asset Voting, in which votes are cast and tallied just as in FPTP, but then the candidate with the fewest votes gets to reassign their votes to one of the remaining candidates, with this process repeating until a candidate has a majority. This should remove the problems of spoiler candidates and tactical voting.
- pjc50 6y ago
  This is a political problem and not a technical one. The UK already uses STV, D'Hondt, and AMS in various elections. There is no campaign to change those to FPTP. The reason we can't change the Westminster voting system is exactly the reason we want it: because it would disrupt the existing party alignment and power structure. Same reason we still have an entirely unelected legislative house. The same, presumably, applies in America. Parties are willing to sabotage elections altogether there rather than risk making them fairer.
  - dane-pgp 6y ago
    > There is no campaign to change those to FPTP. That depends what you mean by "campaign"[0] (or "is", I suppose[1]). We saw in the 2019 election that individual MPs[2] and even the parties themselves[3] were willing to create electoral alliances for a single issue goal. It is not inconceivable then that an alliance could be formed (perhaps in the aftermath of a hung parliament, or in the run up to a close election) where MPs agreed to introduce a voting system which made the minimum possible change to the existing procedure while also making all future "standing down candidates" alliances unnecessary. [0] https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/the-conservatives-just-pledged-to-take-our-democracy-back-decades/ https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/the-conservatives-just-p... [1] https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/latest-news-and-research/media-centre/press-releases/conservative-manifesto-ers-warn-against-undemocratic-voter-id-plans-but-welcome-u-turn-on-pledge-to-impose-first-past-the-post/ https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/latest-news-and-research... [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50398820 https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50398820 [3] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/07/lib-dems-greens-and-plaid-cymru-reveal-remain-election-pact https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/07/lib-dems-gr...
jfengel 6y ago
We already have that in the US. We just call it "primaries" and "general election". It's not quite a completely open first round, but it's not uncommon for an outsider to come in and win the support of a party without any prior experience with it. I don't think it makes Americans happy.
- jdashg 6y ago
  The separate primaries make it a wildly different game. True run-off (common primary) is used in some states, such as California. In the case where one party wins both run-off slots, the system naturally selects the moderate. Great! However, in a two-party "run-off", the sides are pressured to polarize and rile up their voters. It's a very different game!
  - jfengel 6y ago
    It's different, but I don't think it's as different as you say. It's still a two stage process, and the primaries are generally open to anybody. The pressure to rile up voters exists either way. You saw this in the UK recently, where there are plenty of parties, and the election was incredibly awful. The winner of the election was, as usual, the one that had eliminated the second, third, and fourth parties that split the vote. I'm not saying there aren't differences, but I think it might help Americans to think of it as if it were more similar. They cast one vote, and if their candidate lost, they get to vote for their second favorite. It's not identical to a runoff election, but there are enough similarities to make me believe that a change to true runoff elections would not alter how people perceive the result.