4 ms·

Approval voting may lead to election of weak candidates, no? Like there's a strong right candidate, disapproved by left, there's strong left, disapproved by rig

Approval voting may lead to election of weak candidates, no? Like there's a strong right candidate, disapproved by left, there's strong left, disapproved by right, and there's meh candidate approved by both. Either strong right or strong left might be better for both left and right. Thank you for pointing to the flaws of RCV though. It has flaws, but still looks like an improvement. In London mayor they were using "Contingent vote" system, which is AFAIU RCV with only two options, which is weaker than RCV. And in the next elections they switched it to FPTP, which is unfortunate.

soberpeach 5y ago
Regarding your comment about approval, isn't that the intended outcome? You elect the candidate that the most people approve of, regardless of whether or not there are other "stronger" candidates. The population would be better served than if one of the "strong" left or right candidates were elected. You could also just not vote for any other candidates if you don't think they'd do a good job. In your example, the left or the right could just not vote for the "meh" candidate if they truly don't believe they would be a good person to lead, and if they do vote for them, then they should be happy at the outcome regardless.
- elihu 5y ago
  Yeah, it's literally "elect the candidate with the highest approval rating" which seems like a fair and reasonable outcome. (That's assuming that people vote honestly, but according to at least one analysis [1], the outcome isn't very much less democratically optimal if people vote strategically in approval voting rather than honestly.) [1] https://electionscience.org/library/tactical-voting-basics/ https://electionscience.org/library/tactical-voting-basics/
- asteroidbelt 5y ago
  > You elect the candidate that the most people approve of, regardless of whether or not there are other "stronger" candidates. It may be a strategic voting: I approve anyone who is not democrat (or republican). > The population would be better served than if one of the "strong" left or right candidates were elected. Not necessarily. Perhaps it is better when left/right candidates alternate (driving important changes in their area of interests), than weak candidates elected every time.

soberpeach 5y ago

Regarding your comment about approval, isn't that the intended outcome? You elect the candidate that the most people approve of, regardless of whether or not there are other "stronger" candidates. The population would be better served than if one of the "strong" left or right candidates were elected. You could also just not vote for any other candidates if you don't think they'd do a good job. In your example, the left or the right could just not vote for the "meh" candidate if they truly don't believe they would be a good person to lead, and if they do vote for them, then they should be happy at the outcome regardless.

elihu 5y ago
Yeah, it's literally "elect the candidate with the highest approval rating" which seems like a fair and reasonable outcome. (That's assuming that people vote honestly, but according to at least one analysis [1], the outcome isn't very much less democratically optimal if people vote strategically in approval voting rather than honestly.) [1] https://electionscience.org/library/tactical-voting-basics/ https://electionscience.org/library/tactical-voting-basics/
asteroidbelt 5y ago
> You elect the candidate that the most people approve of, regardless of whether or not there are other "stronger" candidates. It may be a strategic voting: I approve anyone who is not democrat (or republican). > The population would be better served than if one of the "strong" left or right candidates were elected. Not necessarily. Perhaps it is better when left/right candidates alternate (driving important changes in their area of interests), than weak candidates elected every time.