3 ms·
That's where something like STAR voting is even better. Just score people 0 to 5 on how much you like them. Gets rid of strategic voting, spoiler effect and wor
by ajmurmann 5y ago
That's where something like STAR voting is even better. Just score people 0 to 5 on how much you like them. Gets rid of strategic voting, spoiler effect and works super well for large sets of choices as well. It's in essence like we score movies or restaurant reviews which makes it familiar as well.
- lostdog 5y agoI would take STAR voting! The only downside is having to hear politicians ask for 5 stars in every speech!
- MichaelApproved 5y agoLet’s be honest, it’s hard enough getting Americans to the ballot on Election Day, we don’t need to introduce more complexity. Ranking requires far less brain power than a rating system would. Maybe the energy expenditure between the two is small for the HN group but for the general public, the aversion to doing the mental work would be enough to dramatically reduce turnout. This goes for all countries, not just America. Not to mention how easy it is to spread lies for something as simplistic as FPTP. The more complicated a system is, the easier it’ll be to spread lies about it.
- ajmurmann 5y agoI'm not sure why you claim that ranking requires less brain power. Ranking becomes especially burdensome as you have more candidates/options. On top of that ranked voting seems much simpler on the surface than it actually is. The actual calculation is quite opaque in comparison.
- goatse-4-u 5y ago.
- ClayShentrup 5y ago> Ranking requires far less brain power than a rating system would. Rating is simpler than ranking in every way we can measure, from rates of ballot spoilage, to average time taken to complete a ballot. https://medium.com/election-science/star-voting-is-simpler-than-irv-84b8990986f2 https://medium.com/election-science/star-voting-is-simpler-t... https://www.rangevoting.org/Complexity https://www.rangevoting.org/Complexity Most obviously, ranking is effectively a bubble sort, О(n^2), whereas rating is just two passes: 1. Get the max and min. 2. Normalize, thus O(n). And Approval Voting, technically rating on a 0-1 binary scale, is arguably even simpler than the status quo.
- creata 5y agoI don't have a score in my head for each politician: I just know which are better, and which are worse. Consequently, > Most obviously, ranking is effectively a bubble sort, О(n^2), whereas rating is just two passes: 1. Get the max and min. 2. Normalize, thus O(n). is meaningless to me: rating is impossible, because it's asking me for numbers that I just don't have.
- asteroidbelt 5y agoSTAR voting does not eliminate strategic voting. Suppose you are left, and there are three candidate, left, center, right. Honestly you would rank then as 5, 3, 1. But center candidate is better for you than right. So you are going to vote 5, 5, 1. So STAR voting is effectively an approval voting.
- ClayShentrup 5y agoSTAR voting comes the closest to eliminating strategic voting of any deterministic voting method being seriously proposed for government elections. https://clayshentrup.medium.com/strategy-with-star-voting-and-irv-1ec22028399d https://clayshentrup.medium.com/strategy-with-star-voting-an... > But center candidate is better for you than right. So you are going to vote 5, 5, 1. So STAR voting is effectively an approval voting. Obviously not true. If you did that, and left and center make it to the runoff, your vote has zero power. And also flawed for other reasons I discuss in that blog link.