4 ms·

Can you point to a real example where you can't distinguish between candidates (I'm Australian, so vote with IRV, and I can't say it ever comes up, except perha

Can you point to a real example where you can't distinguish between candidates (I'm Australian, so vote with IRV, and I can't say it ever comes up, except perhaps when choosing who should be last vs second last ;)? Approval voting would seem to have the same convergence to a two party system as FPTP where you have a chamber composed of multiple members, a mayor or similar role would be different. Multi-member representation would be ideal, but I can see the appeal of having a single person represent you.

jabl 5y ago
> Can you point to a real example where you can't distinguish between candidates With hundreds/thousands(?) of ranked voting elections worldwide, with certainly millions of voters, you're statistically guaranteed to have that situation for some voter somewhere. > Approval voting would seem to have the same convergence to a two party system as FPTP where you have a chamber composed of multiple members, a mayor or similar role would be different. Not sure the voting method used for single-winner elections matter that much for the dynamics leading to a duopoly or not. I think convergence to a duopoly is most strongly influenced by winner-take-all districts. The solution to that, as you pointed out, is multi-member districts with proportional representation. > but I can see the appeal of having a single person represent you ... assuming that 'your' party wins. Otherwise you have no representation at all and you feel disfranchised? I'd say the major appeal of single-winner districts is that the districts are much smaller, and you have a better chance to get to know your own representative (again, assuming it's somebody you find broadly acceptable).
- aragilar 5y ago
  > With hundreds/thousands(?) of ranked voting elections worldwide, with certainly millions of voters, you're statistically guaranteed to have that situation for some voter somewhere. One could argue the same thing applies when a voter chooses whether or not to approve a vote for a candidate they don't like in order to prevent an even more disliked candidate from winning. To me, it seems a false choice either way (to order or to approve). Possibly this a framing problem, given I've grown up in a system where IRV/STV is used, I naturally compare candidates, maybe someone growing up in a Approval voting system would naturally think about whether they like a specific candidate or not. > ... assuming that 'your' party wins. Otherwise you have no representation at all and you feel disfranchised? Having two houses where one uses STV and the other has single member districts does have its advantages as a "why not both" option.

jabl 5y ago

> Can you point to a real example where you can't distinguish between candidates With hundreds/thousands(?) of ranked voting elections worldwide, with certainly millions of voters, you're statistically guaranteed to have that situation for some voter somewhere. > Approval voting would seem to have the same convergence to a two party system as FPTP where you have a chamber composed of multiple members, a mayor or similar role would be different. Not sure the voting method used for single-winner elections matter that much for the dynamics leading to a duopoly or not. I think convergence to a duopoly is most strongly influenced by winner-take-all districts. The solution to that, as you pointed out, is multi-member districts with proportional representation. > but I can see the appeal of having a single person represent you ... assuming that 'your' party wins. Otherwise you have no representation at all and you feel disfranchised? I'd say the major appeal of single-winner districts is that the districts are much smaller, and you have a better chance to get to know your own representative (again, assuming it's somebody you find broadly acceptable).

aragilar 5y ago
> With hundreds/thousands(?) of ranked voting elections worldwide, with certainly millions of voters, you're statistically guaranteed to have that situation for some voter somewhere. One could argue the same thing applies when a voter chooses whether or not to approve a vote for a candidate they don't like in order to prevent an even more disliked candidate from winning. To me, it seems a false choice either way (to order or to approve). Possibly this a framing problem, given I've grown up in a system where IRV/STV is used, I naturally compare candidates, maybe someone growing up in a Approval voting system would naturally think about whether they like a specific candidate or not. > ... assuming that 'your' party wins. Otherwise you have no representation at all and you feel disfranchised? Having two houses where one uses STV and the other has single member districts does have its advantages as a "why not both" option.