4 ms·

In Canada it’s been used by the Conservative party for their leadership contests. Both times, the response to the winner has been “Who?”. So in a field with a

by graeme 6y ago

In Canada it’s been used by the Conservative party for their leadership contests. Both times, the response to the winner has been “Who?”. So in a field with a lot of contenders it can favour marginal candidates. You also end up with an absurdly big ballot. Past, say, five ranks the choices are hardly meaningful. I’m favourably disposed to this type of voting but those are a couple of downsides.

jmholla 6y ago
> You also end up with an absurdly big ballot. Past, say, five ranks the choices are hardly meaningful. How does the type of voting affect the number of people on the ballot?
- graeme 6y ago
  Right now if you vote for a third party in the US your vote is wasted. Under a ranked ballot system you can vote for a super marginal party confident that your more mainstream preference will ultimately get your vote if your marginal candidate loses. This encourages votes for smaller parties
  - jmholla 6y ago
    Are you saying more parties crop up? I still have third parties on FPTP ballots.
    - sokoloff 6y ago
      My vote in MA is not mathematically meaningful today, as you could correctly call the 2020 presidential race for blue back all the way back in 2016. Change the voting process and I could vote for Party Q, then F, then D and have something closer to my true preferences be measurable vs today and give the parties a sense of where they stand with the populace. I’m still not convinced it breaks the binary star in US politics. Right now, if those are my prefs, I have a choice of voting Q, voting D, or staying home. If Q is a third party, there’s an argument that vote might as well have not been counted or cast (because from today’s voting you can’t infer the true level of support for Q because some Qs cast their ballot for D just on the off chance that R would otherwise win; for the same reason, you can’t tell as much about the true R or D support either).
      - jmholla 6y ago
        My question was around the size of the ballot, not the weight of a person's vote.
    - graeme 6y ago
      More third parties become reasonable contenders.
- godelski 6y ago
  You have to rank them against one another. 10 candidates, 10 comparisons. 100 candidates, 100 comparisons. Alternatively cardinal systems scale trivially (you express how much you like an individual candidate -- independently-- not how much you like a candidate -- comparatively -- to another candidate). You can bullet vote a party line if you really want.
  - jmholla 6y ago
    That doesn't affect ballot size. You have the same number of candidates with boxes next to their name you put a number in, unless someone is making the implementation more complicated.
k4tz 6y ago
I agree that there are some downsides, but regarding the conservative party leadership contests, it's probably fairly likely that the "who?" response would've happened under FPTP. 2017, likely that Bernier would've won, but I'm not convinced that he was more well-known than Scheer. Happy to be proven wrong here. The 2020 result would likely have been the same as it is now. A small contingent of Sloan/Lewis supporters strategically voting would have tipped it to O'Toole.

by graeme 6y ago

jmholla 6y ago

> You also end up with an absurdly big ballot. Past, say, five ranks the choices are hardly meaningful. How does the type of voting affect the number of people on the ballot?

graeme 6y ago
Right now if you vote for a third party in the US your vote is wasted. Under a ranked ballot system you can vote for a super marginal party confident that your more mainstream preference will ultimately get your vote if your marginal candidate loses. This encourages votes for smaller parties
- jmholla 6y ago
  Are you saying more parties crop up? I still have third parties on FPTP ballots.
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    My vote in MA is not mathematically meaningful today, as you could correctly call the 2020 presidential race for blue back all the way back in 2016. Change the voting process and I could vote for Party Q, then F, then D and have something closer to my true preferences be measurable vs today and give the parties a sense of where they stand with the populace. I’m still not convinced it breaks the binary star in US politics. Right now, if those are my prefs, I have a choice of voting Q, voting D, or staying home. If Q is a third party, there’s an argument that vote might as well have not been counted or cast (because from today’s voting you can’t infer the true level of support for Q because some Qs cast their ballot for D just on the off chance that R would otherwise win; for the same reason, you can’t tell as much about the true R or D support either).
    - jmholla 6y ago
      My question was around the size of the ballot, not the weight of a person's vote.
  - graeme 6y ago
    More third parties become reasonable contenders.
godelski 6y ago
You have to rank them against one another. 10 candidates, 10 comparisons. 100 candidates, 100 comparisons. Alternatively cardinal systems scale trivially (you express how much you like an individual candidate -- independently-- not how much you like a candidate -- comparatively -- to another candidate). You can bullet vote a party line if you really want.
- jmholla 6y ago
  That doesn't affect ballot size. You have the same number of candidates with boxes next to their name you put a number in, unless someone is making the implementation more complicated.

k4tz 6y ago

I agree that there are some downsides, but regarding the conservative party leadership contests, it's probably fairly likely that the "who?" response would've happened under FPTP. 2017, likely that Bernier would've won, but I'm not convinced that he was more well-known than Scheer. Happy to be proven wrong here. The 2020 result would likely have been the same as it is now. A small contingent of Sloan/Lewis supporters strategically voting would have tipped it to O'Toole.