3 ms·

Worst possible ranked choice alternative, not worst possible voting method (i.e., still better than FPTP, but not without its weaknesses). Frustrating as there

Worst possible ranked choice alternative, not worst possible voting method (i.e., still better than FPTP, but not without its weaknesses). Frustrating as there are more straightforward, and objectively better mechanisms which are ignored in favor of IRV. It's hard not to feel conspiratorial that maybe the Powers That Be want worse voting mechanisms. This page is a good explainer of IRV's weaknesses and shows some of the alternatives: https://ncase.me/ballot/ https://ncase.me/ballot/

dane-pgp 5y ago
> not worst possible voting method Since you mention it, let me offer a candidate for "worst possible voting method (that has actually been used in a democracy)", namely "plurality-At-Large".[0] It basically takes the worst properties of FPTP and extends them to an entire governing body, allowing a party with less than 50% support to win 100% of the seats (by design). Fortunately it has been mostly abandoned in the US thanks to the Voting Rights Act and subsequent SCOTUS decisions. [0] https://www.nonprofitvote.org/the-bias-of-at-large-elections-how-it-works/ https://www.nonprofitvote.org/the-bias-of-at-large-elections...
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Fortunately it has been mostly abandoned in the US thanks to the Voting Rights Act and subsequent SCOTUS decisions. A close variant (vote for up to N, top N win, at large) is used in a lot of local elections still; all multimember district methods are banned in House elections specifically to prevent plurality at large from being used there. (Though the Senate uses temporally-segregated two-seat plurality at large in every state.)
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > (Though the Senate uses temporally-segregated two-seat plurality at large in every state.) Correction: it uses either that or similarly segregated majority/runoff, varying by state. Majority/runoff and plurality are similar FPTP variants, but majority/runoff is slightly less bad.

dane-pgp 5y ago

> not worst possible voting method Since you mention it, let me offer a candidate for "worst possible voting method (that has actually been used in a democracy)", namely "plurality-At-Large".[0] It basically takes the worst properties of FPTP and extends them to an entire governing body, allowing a party with less than 50% support to win 100% of the seats (by design). Fortunately it has been mostly abandoned in the US thanks to the Voting Rights Act and subsequent SCOTUS decisions. [0] https://www.nonprofitvote.org/the-bias-of-at-large-elections-how-it-works/ https://www.nonprofitvote.org/the-bias-of-at-large-elections...

dragonwriter 5y ago
> Fortunately it has been mostly abandoned in the US thanks to the Voting Rights Act and subsequent SCOTUS decisions. A close variant (vote for up to N, top N win, at large) is used in a lot of local elections still; all multimember district methods are banned in House elections specifically to prevent plurality at large from being used there. (Though the Senate uses temporally-segregated two-seat plurality at large in every state.)
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > (Though the Senate uses temporally-segregated two-seat plurality at large in every state.) Correction: it uses either that or similarly segregated majority/runoff, varying by state. Majority/runoff and plurality are similar FPTP variants, but majority/runoff is slightly less bad.