4 ms·

Yes, sorry, "horrible" was a bit strong and I edited that out of my comment immediately after posting it, heh... I do appreciate the progress, but I worry that

by catern 5y ago

Yes, sorry, "horrible" was a bit strong and I edited that out of my comment immediately after posting it, heh... I do appreciate the progress, but I worry that people will regard this incarnation of ranked choice voting as "more complicated" when the entire point is that it's less complicated for the individual voter...

thepete2 5y ago
Could you elaborate how RCV is less complicated? Just by eliminating tactical voting? In traditional voting you often limit yourself to the incumbents, isn't that a lot fewer choices?
- munk-a 5y ago
  Limiting yourself to the likely candidates requires a level of awareness around polling - that information is practically forced down our throats since voting in America pretty much requires it, but polling information (what other people think of the candidate) isn't an important piece of information for the voter - it's their opinion the system ideally wants them to express. RCV is, at a maximum, equally as complicated as FPTP style voting since you have the option to elect only a single choice on your ballot (unless they're doing something weird). The form of the ballot may be visually more overwhelming but that's just from unfamiliarity.
  - thepete2 5y ago
    Right, but you can argue ranking N items takes more thought thank picking 1. I like the "interoperable" way, just making choices 2 and onward optional.
    - munk-a 5y ago
      Given the wording in the article I'm almost certain that underfilling the selection wouldn't result in a spoiled ballot. People can continue to just pick their favorite dude and go one with their lives. From a survey mentioned in the article apparently only a quarter of potential voters choose to only make a single choice[1]. 1. http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/WNBC_Telemundo-47_POLITIICO_Marist-Poll_NYC_Written-Summary-of-Findings_2106121532.pdf http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/WNBC...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- catern 5y ago
  >you often limit yourself to the incumbents A voting system where you're limited to only voting for the incumbent is indeed very simple (although not very democractic)... I assume you meant "limit yourself to the frontrunners". :) In an election where there's exactly two candidates, RCV (or most other alternative voting systems) is the same as simple majority. You're right that with exactly two candidates, tactical voting isn't a concern, and simple majority voting is the simplest and best system. But many elections do not have exactly two candidates - primaries being the most salient example. With RCV/alternative voting systems, you don't need to know who's popular or "electable" or any of that. You can just go with your most naive, direct take on the candidates. Say you like two candidates A and B, but most of all you want to make sure candidate Z loses. Just rank A and B first, then everyone else equally, then candidate Z. You don't have to think about who is most likely to beat Z - you don't even have to follow the election at all.
  - thepete2 5y ago
    *frontrunners, yes I wasn't aware you could rank candidates equally, that makes it simpler indeed.

by catern 5y ago

thepete2 5y ago

Could you elaborate how RCV is less complicated? Just by eliminating tactical voting? In traditional voting you often limit yourself to the incumbents, isn't that a lot fewer choices?

munk-a 5y ago
Limiting yourself to the likely candidates requires a level of awareness around polling - that information is practically forced down our throats since voting in America pretty much requires it, but polling information (what other people think of the candidate) isn't an important piece of information for the voter - it's their opinion the system ideally wants them to express. RCV is, at a maximum, equally as complicated as FPTP style voting since you have the option to elect only a single choice on your ballot (unless they're doing something weird). The form of the ballot may be visually more overwhelming but that's just from unfamiliarity.
- thepete2 5y ago
  Right, but you can argue ranking N items takes more thought thank picking 1. I like the "interoperable" way, just making choices 2 and onward optional.
  - munk-a 5y ago
    Given the wording in the article I'm almost certain that underfilling the selection wouldn't result in a spoiled ballot. People can continue to just pick their favorite dude and go one with their lives. From a survey mentioned in the article apparently only a quarter of potential voters choose to only make a single choice[1]. 1. http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/WNBC_Telemundo-47_POLITIICO_Marist-Poll_NYC_Written-Summary-of-Findings_2106121532.pdf http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/WNBC...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
catern 5y ago
>you often limit yourself to the incumbents A voting system where you're limited to only voting for the incumbent is indeed very simple (although not very democractic)... I assume you meant "limit yourself to the frontrunners". :) In an election where there's exactly two candidates, RCV (or most other alternative voting systems) is the same as simple majority. You're right that with exactly two candidates, tactical voting isn't a concern, and simple majority voting is the simplest and best system. But many elections do not have exactly two candidates - primaries being the most salient example. With RCV/alternative voting systems, you don't need to know who's popular or "electable" or any of that. You can just go with your most naive, direct take on the candidates. Say you like two candidates A and B, but most of all you want to make sure candidate Z loses. Just rank A and B first, then everyone else equally, then candidate Z. You don't have to think about who is most likely to beat Z - you don't even have to follow the election at all.
- thepete2 5y ago
  *frontrunners, yes I wasn't aware you could rank candidates equally, that makes it simpler indeed.