4 ms·
That's an interesting point because it effectively nullifies the argument for more nuanced voting mechanisms such as Score Voting. Since more nuanced voting wo
by sova 6y ago
That's an interesting point because it effectively nullifies the argument for more nuanced voting mechanisms such as Score Voting. Since more nuanced voting would require a stronger reliance on vote tabulators. It is somewhat deflating that better voting methods must be discarded in favor of "inefficiency as a feature." I long for an upgrade to voting, but all these arguments _in favor of_ hand-counting-only make me think we are stuck with plurality voting for a long time.
- jrumbut 6y agoI have a suspicion that a complex voting system (like, anything more complex than "most votes win") would spread greater confusion and distrust, that's just my pessimism. I would be happy if we could have a national popular vote to choose the president, that reduces complexity. I'm wary of anything more, though I do like that there are now some experiments here and there with other systems. Edit: I've recently come to the conclusion that the real value of elections is as a national show of force. "1xx,000,000 of us are here and paying attention and expecting the government to respond to our interests and willing to do something about it"
- godelski 6y ago> it effectively nullifies the argument for more nuanced voting mechanisms such as Score Voting. I'm extremely confused by this statement. All the systems the parent is talking about still use plurality. Substituting in another voting method doesn't change the fact that each state works slightly differently (and really every county). I'd also say that if this was your goal then you'd want something besides plurality. RCV/IRV would probably be good because it is highly inefficient because you have to do many different rounds whereas systems like plurality and condorcet (exception to STAR, which has 2 rounds) are single round methods. I should mention Ireland and Australia does hand counting with IRV (Australia has had IRV for 100+ years). I don't think the hand counting is really a major factor, though I will still contend that ordinal systems are needlessly complicated when we have cardinal systems available to us (which also give higher fidelity).
- sova 6y agoIRV with hand-counting sounds nigh impossible, I have a hard time imagining how it is done. Are the multiple rounds done as multiple hand-counts?
- godelski 6y agoI remember seeing a video where they were showing the counting on an election night, but that was awhile ago. I looked for it again but the current situation is muddying the search results. But I can try to remember. What I remember is that it was a pretty messy process and they were marking ballots (I think with stickers to keep the ballots immutable). But yeah, generally it is chaotic. But clearly it was done because Australia didn't have computers in the early 1900's. At least to the best of my knowledge. As for part more information Clay (who might be in this thread somewhere?) put out a pretty good video on voting methods and towards the end he shows a sample of an Oakland Mayoral result that used IRV[0] (around 15:20). It isn't too useful in isolation but I do encourage watching the whole thing because it is from someone who is a HN member and an expert on voting. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyBm_Hcu4DI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyBm_Hcu4DI
- naniwaduni 6y agoUse approval voting, which captures all the advantages of score voting at scale anyway and is dead simple to count.