5 ms·

Ranked choice has a lot of advantages over the alternatives that are often underestimated by people too worried about theory. The big advantage of ranked choic

Ranked choice has a lot of advantages over the alternatives that are often underestimated by people too worried about theory. The big advantage of ranked choice is that it is simple to understand and implement. In elections, it is essential that the average person understand exactly how the system works. An election result that people don't understand/trust is worse than useless.

JasonFruit 5y ago
Exactly that! What you cannot have in a trustworthy election is: - I vote - Something happens in a black box - A result emerges that I do not comprehend
endisneigh 5y ago
Approval voting is simpler, doesn't require ballots to change and has the same effect in practice (but not in theory). I'd be surprised if an average person finds ranked choice voting to be simpler to understand than approval or FPTP.
- lalaland1125 5y ago
  Yeah, this is one huge advantage of approval voting. The main issue with approval voting though is that it's much harder for individuals to use when voting. It's tricky to figure out when to bullet vote vs not bullet vote. Simplicity to use != simplicity to count I think ranked choice is in that sweet spot where it is reasonably simple to use and simple to count.
  - endisneigh 5y ago
    Approval is also simpler to count. Ranked choice ballots can't even be properly distributed among congressional districts, as a result it takes longer to get results. The only advantages ranked choice have over approval are entirely theoretical. Another advantage approval has is that it trends towards moderation. Approval isn't perfect though (personally I prefer STAR, but it requires ballots to change).
  - lukeschlather 5y ago
    I would really like to see open primaries with approval voting and the top two going to the general election. I think that is much simpler than RCV and I'm not convinced RCV would ever provide a better outcome.
  - ClayShentrup 5y ago
    It seems strange to give people worse election outcomes that they have to live with for 4 years at a time just to make their 5 minutes in the voting booth feel a little more pleasant. Approval voting may not seem "fun", But thousands of voters have used it in Fargo and St Louis without any issue. All the evidence says it gets better results, is more resistant to strategic voting, and has a better chance of replacing the status quo.
  - dllthomas 5y ago
    > I think ranked choice is in that sweet spot where it is reasonably simple to use and simple to count. "Ranked choice" is a range of methods and usually people mean instant-runoff. Recognizing that no system is perfect, I nonetheless have significant worries about instant runoff. Imagine we have a society that's predominately split into two religions, where members of each religion would love a theocracy of their flavor, would settle for secular tolerance, and is vigorously (sometimes violently!) opposed to theocracy of another flavor. If we have three candidates, one representing each of these positions, and everyone votes their true preferences then we see maybe 40% theocracy A, 40% theocracy B, 20% secular tolerance. The very first thing instant-runoff does is throw out the compromise, and we chose violence and strife. If we generally believe that "a good compromise is when both parties are dissatisfied" then IRV will never choose a good compromise. I worry that that's a bad way of choosing what we do as a society.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
That's a reason I like approval voting. It's easier to consider what your ballot's effect will be. That's hard with IRV.
- roenxi 5y ago
  Ironically, although no individual would want it, it is probably a good thing that it is hard to tell what a ballot's effect will be. If the situation is close the best outcome may be a somewhat random outcome. Having 1,000 extra votes determine the outcome is just as arbitrary as anything else.
- TulliusCicero 5y ago
  Regular voters will basically always prefer ranked choice over approval imo, because they really want to be able to rank their preferences. A leftist who wants a green party candidate but will hold their nose for a Democrat doesn't want them to be "equal" in how they vote.
- xscott 5y ago
  Approval voting makes much more sense to me. Consider ranked-choice if it were applied to the presidency: Given that some states are slow to report their results, there are scenarios where you can't fall back to people's second choices until all the votes are in and finalized to determine who lost the first round. With approval voting, you can declare a victor without running a state machine.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    Why is this a problem in the age of computers and internet?
    - donpott 5y ago
      Because Electronic Voting is generally considered too attack-prone to be trusted. Relevant Tom Scott video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkH2r-sNjQs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkH2r-sNjQs
vintermann 5y ago
No it isn't, technically. I can guarantee you that most people in Norway can't explain the Sainte-Laguë divisors method which delivers proportional representation. What is true, is that simplicity is a propaganda advantage for actually getting it passed, since "It's too complex so we can't trust it" is a good attack line even if it isn't true. I'm not sure that advantage is worth it, given that 1. it's a terribly long shot anyway, and 2. It's the same argument which will be used to defend the status quo.
- cabalamat 5y ago
  > I can guarantee you that most people in Norway can't explain the Sainte-Laguë divisors method which delivers proportional representation. I expect most could if they spent 5 minutes on Wikipedia researching it. They don't, because they don't want to; most probably regard it as an unimportant implementation detail.
- matsemann 5y ago
  You don't need to know the method, though. You just need to know that in Norway getting above or under the 4% line drastically affects how many representatives a party will get, and vote according to that.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> The big advantage of ranked choice is that it is simple to understand and implement No, its not. That would be a big advantage of the method equivalent to it but without loser elimination and instead counting each rank down on all ballots simultaneously, which is both easier to understand and much easier to implement.
ClayShentrup 5y ago
This is deeply wrong. IRV is one of the most complicated methods, and most people in places that use it can't even explain how it works. https://link.medium.com/mKcRWz0xR7 https://link.medium.com/mKcRWz0xR7

JasonFruit 5y ago

Exactly that! What you cannot have in a trustworthy election is: - I vote - Something happens in a black box - A result emerges that I do not comprehend

endisneigh 5y ago

Approval voting is simpler, doesn't require ballots to change and has the same effect in practice (but not in theory). I'd be surprised if an average person finds ranked choice voting to be simpler to understand than approval or FPTP.

lalaland1125 5y ago
Yeah, this is one huge advantage of approval voting. The main issue with approval voting though is that it's much harder for individuals to use when voting. It's tricky to figure out when to bullet vote vs not bullet vote. Simplicity to use != simplicity to count I think ranked choice is in that sweet spot where it is reasonably simple to use and simple to count.
- endisneigh 5y ago
  Approval is also simpler to count. Ranked choice ballots can't even be properly distributed among congressional districts, as a result it takes longer to get results. The only advantages ranked choice have over approval are entirely theoretical. Another advantage approval has is that it trends towards moderation. Approval isn't perfect though (personally I prefer STAR, but it requires ballots to change).
- lukeschlather 5y ago
  I would really like to see open primaries with approval voting and the top two going to the general election. I think that is much simpler than RCV and I'm not convinced RCV would ever provide a better outcome.
- ClayShentrup 5y ago
  It seems strange to give people worse election outcomes that they have to live with for 4 years at a time just to make their 5 minutes in the voting booth feel a little more pleasant. Approval voting may not seem "fun", But thousands of voters have used it in Fargo and St Louis without any issue. All the evidence says it gets better results, is more resistant to strategic voting, and has a better chance of replacing the status quo.
- dllthomas 5y ago
  > I think ranked choice is in that sweet spot where it is reasonably simple to use and simple to count. "Ranked choice" is a range of methods and usually people mean instant-runoff. Recognizing that no system is perfect, I nonetheless have significant worries about instant runoff. Imagine we have a society that's predominately split into two religions, where members of each religion would love a theocracy of their flavor, would settle for secular tolerance, and is vigorously (sometimes violently!) opposed to theocracy of another flavor. If we have three candidates, one representing each of these positions, and everyone votes their true preferences then we see maybe 40% theocracy A, 40% theocracy B, 20% secular tolerance. The very first thing instant-runoff does is throw out the compromise, and we chose violence and strife. If we generally believe that "a good compromise is when both parties are dissatisfied" then IRV will never choose a good compromise. I worry that that's a bad way of choosing what we do as a society.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago

That's a reason I like approval voting. It's easier to consider what your ballot's effect will be. That's hard with IRV.

roenxi 5y ago
Ironically, although no individual would want it, it is probably a good thing that it is hard to tell what a ballot's effect will be. If the situation is close the best outcome may be a somewhat random outcome. Having 1,000 extra votes determine the outcome is just as arbitrary as anything else.
TulliusCicero 5y ago
Regular voters will basically always prefer ranked choice over approval imo, because they really want to be able to rank their preferences. A leftist who wants a green party candidate but will hold their nose for a Democrat doesn't want them to be "equal" in how they vote.
xscott 5y ago
Approval voting makes much more sense to me. Consider ranked-choice if it were applied to the presidency: Given that some states are slow to report their results, there are scenarios where you can't fall back to people's second choices until all the votes are in and finalized to determine who lost the first round. With approval voting, you can declare a victor without running a state machine.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  Why is this a problem in the age of computers and internet?
  - donpott 5y ago
    Because Electronic Voting is generally considered too attack-prone to be trusted. Relevant Tom Scott video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkH2r-sNjQs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkH2r-sNjQs

vintermann 5y ago

No it isn't, technically. I can guarantee you that most people in Norway can't explain the Sainte-Laguë divisors method which delivers proportional representation. What is true, is that simplicity is a propaganda advantage for actually getting it passed, since "It's too complex so we can't trust it" is a good attack line even if it isn't true. I'm not sure that advantage is worth it, given that 1. it's a terribly long shot anyway, and 2. It's the same argument which will be used to defend the status quo.

cabalamat 5y ago
> I can guarantee you that most people in Norway can't explain the Sainte-Laguë divisors method which delivers proportional representation. I expect most could if they spent 5 minutes on Wikipedia researching it. They don't, because they don't want to; most probably regard it as an unimportant implementation detail.
matsemann 5y ago
You don't need to know the method, though. You just need to know that in Norway getting above or under the 4% line drastically affects how many representatives a party will get, and vote according to that.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> The big advantage of ranked choice is that it is simple to understand and implement No, its not. That would be a big advantage of the method equivalent to it but without loser elimination and instead counting each rank down on all ballots simultaneously, which is both easier to understand and much easier to implement.

ClayShentrup 5y ago

This is deeply wrong. IRV is one of the most complicated methods, and most people in places that use it can't even explain how it works. https://link.medium.com/mKcRWz0xR7 https://link.medium.com/mKcRWz0xR7