5 ms·

I don't like instant runoff. It seems like it systematically rejects compromise, and I think finding the proper compromise is an important goal of a voting sys

I don't like instant runoff. It seems like it systematically rejects compromise, and I think finding the proper compromise is an important goal of a voting system. For instance, imagine a sectarian society split roughly equally between 3 religions, with 4 candidates running. The first three push theocracy favoring their respective religion, while the fourth favors tolerance and secular government. If, statistically, most of the citizens favor their flavor of theocracy, are happy to put up with secular tolerance, and are vehemently (maybe violently) opposed to living under another religions theocracy, it seems that clearly the best choice is that fourth candidate. If everyone votes their honest preferences, the first thing IRV does is throw away that fourth candidate. The vote might not go that way if enough people recognize the situation and vote strategically, ranking what they see as the proper compromise artificially high. But that's true of any voting system and undermines major selling points of RCV.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
Ranked choice voting does not throw away the fourth candidate, assuming people are voting for the secular person as 2nd in your example.
- wslack 5y ago
  His point is that if few rank the fourth candidate first, they will be the first eliminated in the runoff process.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    Oh, yes, instant runoff is not the way to count, I agree.
- dllthomas 5y ago
  Most RCV systems in practice use IRV (including, IIUC, the New York system under discussion), and I believe I was correct in what I attributed to IRV vs RCV more generally.
- coryrc 5y ago
  Certain groups have made RCV==IRV in an Orwellian fashion. It's now how it is used.
  - dllthomas 5y ago
    I don't believe I conflated the two. The title says RCV, but the algorithm described in the article is specifically IRV and I thought I was clear what I was talking about?
    - coryrc 5y ago
      You were clear. I'm talking about orgs like NPR and FairVote.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      You were, I did not know about the distinction of IRV as a method of counting votes within the realm of RCV.
wslack 5y ago
That's true - but approaches that identify those best compromises get mathematically more and more complex as the system gains fidelity. We shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If a place wants to implement another voting system, I'd be interested to see how it plays out, and if the voters see the winner with legitimacy. IRV is relatively simple and candidates in NY are still attacking it because of the complexity it has over FPTP.
- coryrc 5y ago
  You don't get a lot of chances to change the voting system. Tacoma, WA changed to IRV for a while, but it didn't make any difference in who got elected, then they threw it out a few years later. Good luck getting a better system in place now.
  - wslack 5y ago
    Did they eliminate the primary process? The real value of IRV (IMO) is when you can have a Sanders and a Clinton (or a Trump and a Rubio) both on a general election ballot.
    - coryrc 5y ago
      It appears they did, from https://www.sightline.org/2017/09/19/what-really-happened-with-instant-runoff-voting-in-pierce-county-washington/ https://www.sightline.org/2017/09/19/what-really-happened-wi... "In a single high-turnout election in November, voters could rank any candidates they wanted, regardless of party."
- NickM 5y ago
  Approval voting is much simpler than IRV, and is also better at electing good compromise candidates.
- dllthomas 5y ago
  I think approval voting is both simpler and better at finding compromise, though it does have other weaknesses. There will always be tradeoffs, and perfect ... good ... etc, as you say. I just worry that IRV in particular might not actually be good.
crazygringo 5y ago
I agree that's the greatest weakness in theory. But in practice that's extremely unlikely -- because there's always a significant proportion of the population that isn't tribalistic (or religious, in your case) the fourth candidate will tend to receive a decent proportion of first-place votes. Alternatives have their own problems as well, where approval voting doesn't let you specify intensity of preference, or systems that let you granularly specify intensity of preference are not only too complicated for voters to understand, but also fairly arbitrary in how they compare intensities.
- dllthomas 5y ago
  > But in practice that's extremely unlikely I don't think that's true at all. I agree that I picked a particularly extreme example to make the issue clear, but fundamentally IRV is a statement that the compromise we choose must be the first choice of a large portion of the population. I think that is a bad strategy, and situations where it picks poorly won't be uncommon.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

lotsofpulp 5y ago

Ranked choice voting does not throw away the fourth candidate, assuming people are voting for the secular person as 2nd in your example.

wslack 5y ago
His point is that if few rank the fourth candidate first, they will be the first eliminated in the runoff process.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  Oh, yes, instant runoff is not the way to count, I agree.
dllthomas 5y ago
Most RCV systems in practice use IRV (including, IIUC, the New York system under discussion), and I believe I was correct in what I attributed to IRV vs RCV more generally.
coryrc 5y ago
Certain groups have made RCV==IRV in an Orwellian fashion. It's now how it is used.
- dllthomas 5y ago
  I don't believe I conflated the two. The title says RCV, but the algorithm described in the article is specifically IRV and I thought I was clear what I was talking about?
  - coryrc 5y ago
    You were clear. I'm talking about orgs like NPR and FairVote.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    You were, I did not know about the distinction of IRV as a method of counting votes within the realm of RCV.

wslack 5y ago

That's true - but approaches that identify those best compromises get mathematically more and more complex as the system gains fidelity. We shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If a place wants to implement another voting system, I'd be interested to see how it plays out, and if the voters see the winner with legitimacy. IRV is relatively simple and candidates in NY are still attacking it because of the complexity it has over FPTP.

coryrc 5y ago
You don't get a lot of chances to change the voting system. Tacoma, WA changed to IRV for a while, but it didn't make any difference in who got elected, then they threw it out a few years later. Good luck getting a better system in place now.
- wslack 5y ago
  Did they eliminate the primary process? The real value of IRV (IMO) is when you can have a Sanders and a Clinton (or a Trump and a Rubio) both on a general election ballot.
  - coryrc 5y ago
    It appears they did, from https://www.sightline.org/2017/09/19/what-really-happened-with-instant-runoff-voting-in-pierce-county-washington/ https://www.sightline.org/2017/09/19/what-really-happened-wi... "In a single high-turnout election in November, voters could rank any candidates they wanted, regardless of party."
NickM 5y ago
Approval voting is much simpler than IRV, and is also better at electing good compromise candidates.
dllthomas 5y ago
I think approval voting is both simpler and better at finding compromise, though it does have other weaknesses. There will always be tradeoffs, and perfect ... good ... etc, as you say. I just worry that IRV in particular might not actually be good.

crazygringo 5y ago

I agree that's the greatest weakness in theory. But in practice that's extremely unlikely -- because there's always a significant proportion of the population that isn't tribalistic (or religious, in your case) the fourth candidate will tend to receive a decent proportion of first-place votes. Alternatives have their own problems as well, where approval voting doesn't let you specify intensity of preference, or systems that let you granularly specify intensity of preference are not only too complicated for voters to understand, but also fairly arbitrary in how they compare intensities.

dllthomas 5y ago
> But in practice that's extremely unlikely I don't think that's true at all. I agree that I picked a particularly extreme example to make the issue clear, but fundamentally IRV is a statement that the compromise we choose must be the first choice of a large portion of the population. I think that is a bad strategy, and situations where it picks poorly won't be uncommon.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]