3 ms·

Why is star voting (where you award each candidate 0-5 stars) better then ranked choice voting?

by vanattab 6y ago

heintje_ghulam 6y ago
See my post in this thread for an example of why RCV is bad, and see the links I provided to learn more about STAR.
- ElijahLynn 6y ago
  Can you clarify if by "Is bad" you mean not as good as STAR or worse than the First Past The Poll (current system)? It does sound like STAR is better than RCV, especially after reading about it here https://www.wired.com/story/dana-debeauvoir-texas-county-clerk-voting-tech-revolution/ https://www.wired.com/story/dana-debeauvoir-texas-county-cle... (A Texas County Clerk’s Bold Crusade to Transform How We Vote). I do wonder if those adopting RCV are still in a better place, than FPTP, simply because it decreases voter apathy and gives voters a chance to be "heard", thus increasing participation. At least in the short run, I feel like RCV is still a win, even though it may not be as optimal as STAR.
- ElijahLynn 6y ago
  Linking your post you mentioned: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24944151 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24944151
philips 6y ago
The FAQ[1] and comparison page[2] explain their position. [1] https://www.starvoting.us/faq https://www.starvoting.us/faq [2] https://www.equal.vote/star-vs-rcv https://www.equal.vote/star-vs-rcv
- ElijahLynn 6y ago
  Great links on STAR, especially the comparison!
  - godelski 6y ago
    Fun fact, STAR came out of Oregon too. Lane county (where the University of Oregon) has been trying to pass it for awhile (very close last time).
rrrrrrrrrrrryan 6y ago
Simplifying greatly, tactical voting in RCV gets super complex, and STAR does a much better job at rewarding honest voting. In STAR voting, the optimal strategy is almost always to vote how you actually feel. This isn't the case with pure RCV.
- Zak 6y ago
  The Condorcet method also rewards honest voting, and can be used with ranked ballots.
  - godelski 6y ago
    I think this is a bad way to think about things. Rewarding honest voting means that people have perfect information and act rationally (meaning they understand how to maximize their voting power). The other way to frame things is how systems handle strategic voting. One of the reasons I'm a big fan of STAR is because it both prefers honest voting (you maximize your power her) AND it handles strategic voting well[0]. That is, the difference between VSE_best and VSE_worst is small. Where we see that the gap in Condorcet methods (like RP and Schulze) is quite large (>10%). I think people get caught up in Condorcet methods because they look at RP's VSE being the max. But STAR0-10 only has a 0.5% VSE difference on max but a 4% difference in worse case (not to mention that STAR is substantially simpler and scales better). You can't compare voting systems just by looking at VSE. It is an important factor, but there are many other factors that matter (e.g. handle of strategy, transparency, handling spoilers, scalability, and more mathematical factors). [0] https://electionscience.github.io/vse-sim/vse.html https://electionscience.github.io/vse-sim/vse.html
    - Zak 6y ago
      > Rewarding honest voting means that people have perfect information and act rationally Democracy itself implies that we expect voters to be informed and rational. Since we know that isn't the case, perhaps the important business of ruling countries should be left up to those who are very well educated and who possess a certain... nobility. What I like about Condorcet methods is the Condorcet criterion itself. I have yet to find a better definition of a candidate being most preferred by the voters than that the candidate would beat every other candidate in a two-person race. The later-no-harm criterion (that giving a positive rating to a less favored candidate cannot hurt a more favored candidate) is also valuable and STAR doesn't satisfy it. STAR does seem easy to count though, and without doing much research, likely to elect the Condorcet winner most of the time.

Why is star voting (where you award each candidate 0-5 stars) better then ranked choice voting?

heintje_ghulam 6y ago

See my post in this thread for an example of why RCV is bad, and see the links I provided to learn more about STAR.

ElijahLynn 6y ago
Can you clarify if by "Is bad" you mean not as good as STAR or worse than the First Past The Poll (current system)? It does sound like STAR is better than RCV, especially after reading about it here https://www.wired.com/story/dana-debeauvoir-texas-county-clerk-voting-tech-revolution/ https://www.wired.com/story/dana-debeauvoir-texas-county-cle... (A Texas County Clerk’s Bold Crusade to Transform How We Vote). I do wonder if those adopting RCV are still in a better place, than FPTP, simply because it decreases voter apathy and gives voters a chance to be "heard", thus increasing participation. At least in the short run, I feel like RCV is still a win, even though it may not be as optimal as STAR.
ElijahLynn 6y ago
Linking your post you mentioned: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24944151 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24944151

philips 6y ago

The FAQ[1] and comparison page[2] explain their position. [1] https://www.starvoting.us/faq https://www.starvoting.us/faq [2] https://www.equal.vote/star-vs-rcv https://www.equal.vote/star-vs-rcv

ElijahLynn 6y ago
Great links on STAR, especially the comparison!
- godelski 6y ago
  Fun fact, STAR came out of Oregon too. Lane county (where the University of Oregon) has been trying to pass it for awhile (very close last time).

rrrrrrrrrrrryan 6y ago

Simplifying greatly, tactical voting in RCV gets super complex, and STAR does a much better job at rewarding honest voting. In STAR voting, the optimal strategy is almost always to vote how you actually feel. This isn't the case with pure RCV.

Zak 6y ago
The Condorcet method also rewards honest voting, and can be used with ranked ballots.
- godelski 6y ago
  I think this is a bad way to think about things. Rewarding honest voting means that people have perfect information and act rationally (meaning they understand how to maximize their voting power). The other way to frame things is how systems handle strategic voting. One of the reasons I'm a big fan of STAR is because it both prefers honest voting (you maximize your power her) AND it handles strategic voting well[0]. That is, the difference between VSE_best and VSE_worst is small. Where we see that the gap in Condorcet methods (like RP and Schulze) is quite large (>10%). I think people get caught up in Condorcet methods because they look at RP's VSE being the max. But STAR0-10 only has a 0.5% VSE difference on max but a 4% difference in worse case (not to mention that STAR is substantially simpler and scales better). You can't compare voting systems just by looking at VSE. It is an important factor, but there are many other factors that matter (e.g. handle of strategy, transparency, handling spoilers, scalability, and more mathematical factors). [0] https://electionscience.github.io/vse-sim/vse.html https://electionscience.github.io/vse-sim/vse.html
  - Zak 6y ago
    > Rewarding honest voting means that people have perfect information and act rationally Democracy itself implies that we expect voters to be informed and rational. Since we know that isn't the case, perhaps the important business of ruling countries should be left up to those who are very well educated and who possess a certain... nobility. What I like about Condorcet methods is the Condorcet criterion itself. I have yet to find a better definition of a candidate being most preferred by the voters than that the candidate would beat every other candidate in a two-person race. The later-no-harm criterion (that giving a positive rating to a less favored candidate cannot hurt a more favored candidate) is also valuable and STAR doesn't satisfy it. STAR does seem easy to count though, and without doing much research, likely to elect the Condorcet winner most of the time.