6 ms·

Why else do you think career politicians from across the spectrum, from liberal Gavin Newsom to conservative Ron DeSantis, have worked hard to explicitly block

Why else do you think career politicians from across the spectrum, from liberal Gavin Newsom to conservative Ron DeSantis, have worked hard to explicitly block ranked choice voting reforms? Not just voice their opinions against it, but proactively halt and override legislative reforms when they happen. The duopoly doesn't benefit from making a more fair and inclusive system that allows for a greater diversity of political involvement. "It's a big club, and you're not in it." -- George Carlin

dragonwriter 4y ago
Single-winner ranked ballots methods are reform theater; they aren't particularly “more fair and inclusive” that FPTP in general, and the particular method called “Ranked Choice Voting”, “Alternative Vote”, or “Instant Runoff Voting” in particular is only minimally different in structure and effect from majority-runoff. Established elites make a show of opposing IRV/AV/RCV because centering the debate on that focusses attention there rather than on real reform, which requires systems that produce proportional results.
- toma_caliente 4y ago
  This statement seems to be in conflict with everything I've read about ranked choice voting. If I can put my preferred independent candidate as rank 1 and a safe choice at rank 2 then this is objectively better than just voting for the safe choice out of fear of stealing votes away and giving it to the opposition. What systems would you prefer?
  - salawat 4y ago
    ...That just degenerates to propping up the duopoly! That won't change anything. I'm straight up against any methodology that blunts the sting of no confidence in the two big parties. They should absolutely have to react to shifting priorities. That means, no safety net. Otherwise, you're handing them the same election advantage they've always enjoyed and just handwaving the entire issue. It sounds more to me like we need to start tracking negative votes (not this person) as well. It's bollocks that no confidence is treated as "I have no opinion".
  - germinalphrase 4y ago
    Right, what is considered “real reform” here?
  - JTbane 4y ago
    Just wanted to chime in that all ranked voting systems can be gamed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theore...
    - haswell 4y ago
      This is an oversimplified conclusion. FTA: > The practical consequences of the theorem are debatable: Arrow has said "Most systems are not going to work badly all of the time. All I proved is that all can work badly at times Followed by: > Although Arrow's theorem is a mathematical result, it is often expressed in a non-mathematical way with a statement such as no voting method is fair, every ranked voting method is flawed, or the only voting method that isn't flawed is a dictatorship.[11] These statements are simplifications of Arrow's result which are not universally considered to be true. Bottom line - this seems interesting, but is hardly as simple as "all ranked voting systems can be gamed".
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        > Bottom line - this seems interesting, but is hardly as simple as "all ranked voting systems can be gamed" It is almost that simple. Every deviation from the unattainable ideal in Arrow’s theorem corresponds to one or more ways that the system: (1) can be gamed, or (2) is insensitive to voter preferences, or (3) changes outcomes in the opposite direction of changes in expressed voter preferences. (And usually several from multiple categories.) There are whole catalogs of these and enumerations of which ones apply to each voting system.
    - naniwaduni 4y ago
      Good thing approval voting isn't a ranked voting system!
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        Approval voting is an unforced preference (i.e., allows ties) ranked voting system with only two ranks just like bullet voting systems (plurality and majority-runoff), differing in that it allows ties in both ranks and not just the second. Arrow’s Theorem applies to unforced preference ranked voting systems (with or without limited numbers of preference ranks) the same way as it does to forced preference ranked systems.
- anonporridge 4y ago
  Yes, we also need multi-member, proportional legislative districts. https://www.fairvote.org/prcv https://www.fairvote.org/prcv. Single member districts are a disgusting thing for a society that claims to be a representative democracy. As a very simple example, rural liberals and urban conservatives effectively never get represented in our government, and that's still within the context of the false dichotomy of left/right. But single winner ranked choice voting is still important for elected positions that necessarily must be one person, like executive seats.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > But single winner ranked choice voting is still important for elected positions that necessarily must be one person, like executive seats. Executives are neither necessarily single seat nor necessarily directly elected. When indirectly elected, the electoral body that is itself directly elected need not be elected with single-winner methods. The US, in fact, uses multiwinner elections for electing the electoral college now, though mostly using the specific method (multiseat plurality winner-take-all) whose manifest unfairness and utility in excluding minority voices is the specific reason for the existing statutory ban on multiwinner elections for Congress.
  - t-3 4y ago
    We don't need anything so complicated, we just need to return to the house and electoral college being periodically resized according to census data rather than fixed at 435. Those reversions would solve most electoral problems without even needing to touch hard issues of engineering fair an trustworthy alternative voting systems.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > Those reversions would solve most electoral problems No, they wouldn't, as the problems (including duopoly) predate the changes you would reverse.
      - t-3 4y ago
        The population, level of urbanization, and amount of information were all far less back then. It would be a lot harder for two parties to completely control an 8000 member congress or gerrymander that many districts.
- cowmoo728 4y ago
  Real reform is not palatable. The correct reforms include rotating appointments on the Supreme Court, abolishing the Senate, re-apportioning the House, and changing the presidency to have significantly less power. But something like this is not achievable with the current ossification of our dysfunctional political systems in the US. Given that, I still believe ranked choice voting is the first baby step toward more representative politics.
robonerd 4y ago
I think ranked choice voting is too nerdy for much of the general public to understand; not the principle of it but the actual practice of how to tally votes and calculate the winner. Given the choice between a voting system the public demonstrably tolerates even though it isn't mathematically fair, and a voting system that is mathematically fair but is likely to cause confusion and distrust in elections, I prefer the former. You could change my mind by showing that ranked choice voting systems can be taught to even the most common of midwits.
- anonporridge 4y ago
  I personally slightly prefer approval voting (e.g. select all candidates you like, no ranking, most votes wins). It's simpler for voters and RCV is more likely that people will be lazy and only select one choice. But it does have the problem that many people will think it violates one person, one vote. There are municipalities and states that have implemented both. Voters handle them fine. More importantly, a large minority of people in the US who already believe the current voting system isn't fair, so why are you afraid RCV will make it worse? I think it will be the opposite, since it is likely to cool the political polarization and encourage the election of more moderate politicians that a larger majority are ok with.
  - robonerd 4y ago
    > I personally slightly prefer approval voting (e.g. select all candidates you like, no ranking, most votes wins). Yes, I like this one a lot more. > There are municipalities and states that have implemented both. I think for low-stake elections that most people don't vote in anyway, experimentation is relatively safe. But I wouldn't want to try anything new with fiery federal elections, particularly not the presidential election. The risk of confusion resulting in costly civil unrest is too high. > More importantly, a large minority of people in the US who already believe the current voting system isn't fair Yes, but they tolerate it for the most part.
    - anonporridge 4y ago
      > Yes, but they tolerate it for the most part. Arguable after the 2020 election.
TheRealDunkirk 4y ago
I used to be a big proponent of ranked choice voting, but then I finally stepped back and realized that it doesn't seem to necessarily produce more "inclusive" or "unifying" outcomes. Change my mind.
- boardwaalk 4y ago
  It's a little presumptuous to come in and say "I don't believe this, change my mind." I don't think anybody is going to bother to, frankly. You ought to put in a slight amount of effort and give some modicum of evidence.
  - TheRealDunkirk 4y ago
    “Change my mind” is a meme. Sheesh.
Beldin 4y ago
District-based elections, where each district had one winner, tend to lead to two-party systems. The counting mechanism doesn't meaningfully impact this. If you want to change this, you can expand current districts to cover multiple seats. That way, second-placed, third-placed, and so on, candidates also get seats. Depending on the #seats of the district. Parties could run multiple candidates, since there are multiple seats. For the US, districts with e.g. 5 seats would be very interesting. The effect would be two-fold: first, more distinctiveness between candidates of the same party. Extreme example: a prolife Democrat, a gun-regulation Republican running alongside more traditional candidates. Secondly, at least some candidates outside the 2 major parties will get a seat. This probably means no more majority in House/Senate, but a need to form a coalition. That means talking with each other and reaching agreement would no longer be the newsworthy exception it is today, but would be part of the very fabric of the House/Senate. I don't see how a different counting mechanism could lead to the same effects.

dragonwriter 4y ago

Single-winner ranked ballots methods are reform theater; they aren't particularly “more fair and inclusive” that FPTP in general, and the particular method called “Ranked Choice Voting”, “Alternative Vote”, or “Instant Runoff Voting” in particular is only minimally different in structure and effect from majority-runoff. Established elites make a show of opposing IRV/AV/RCV because centering the debate on that focusses attention there rather than on real reform, which requires systems that produce proportional results.

toma_caliente 4y ago
This statement seems to be in conflict with everything I've read about ranked choice voting. If I can put my preferred independent candidate as rank 1 and a safe choice at rank 2 then this is objectively better than just voting for the safe choice out of fear of stealing votes away and giving it to the opposition. What systems would you prefer?
- salawat 4y ago
  ...That just degenerates to propping up the duopoly! That won't change anything. I'm straight up against any methodology that blunts the sting of no confidence in the two big parties. They should absolutely have to react to shifting priorities. That means, no safety net. Otherwise, you're handing them the same election advantage they've always enjoyed and just handwaving the entire issue. It sounds more to me like we need to start tracking negative votes (not this person) as well. It's bollocks that no confidence is treated as "I have no opinion".
- germinalphrase 4y ago
  Right, what is considered “real reform” here?
- JTbane 4y ago
  Just wanted to chime in that all ranked voting systems can be gamed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theore...
  - haswell 4y ago
    This is an oversimplified conclusion. FTA: > The practical consequences of the theorem are debatable: Arrow has said "Most systems are not going to work badly all of the time. All I proved is that all can work badly at times Followed by: > Although Arrow's theorem is a mathematical result, it is often expressed in a non-mathematical way with a statement such as no voting method is fair, every ranked voting method is flawed, or the only voting method that isn't flawed is a dictatorship.[11] These statements are simplifications of Arrow's result which are not universally considered to be true. Bottom line - this seems interesting, but is hardly as simple as "all ranked voting systems can be gamed".
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > Bottom line - this seems interesting, but is hardly as simple as "all ranked voting systems can be gamed" It is almost that simple. Every deviation from the unattainable ideal in Arrow’s theorem corresponds to one or more ways that the system: (1) can be gamed, or (2) is insensitive to voter preferences, or (3) changes outcomes in the opposite direction of changes in expressed voter preferences. (And usually several from multiple categories.) There are whole catalogs of these and enumerations of which ones apply to each voting system.
  - naniwaduni 4y ago
    Good thing approval voting isn't a ranked voting system!
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      Approval voting is an unforced preference (i.e., allows ties) ranked voting system with only two ranks just like bullet voting systems (plurality and majority-runoff), differing in that it allows ties in both ranks and not just the second. Arrow’s Theorem applies to unforced preference ranked voting systems (with or without limited numbers of preference ranks) the same way as it does to forced preference ranked systems.
anonporridge 4y ago
Yes, we also need multi-member, proportional legislative districts. https://www.fairvote.org/prcv https://www.fairvote.org/prcv. Single member districts are a disgusting thing for a society that claims to be a representative democracy. As a very simple example, rural liberals and urban conservatives effectively never get represented in our government, and that's still within the context of the false dichotomy of left/right. But single winner ranked choice voting is still important for elected positions that necessarily must be one person, like executive seats.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > But single winner ranked choice voting is still important for elected positions that necessarily must be one person, like executive seats. Executives are neither necessarily single seat nor necessarily directly elected. When indirectly elected, the electoral body that is itself directly elected need not be elected with single-winner methods. The US, in fact, uses multiwinner elections for electing the electoral college now, though mostly using the specific method (multiseat plurality winner-take-all) whose manifest unfairness and utility in excluding minority voices is the specific reason for the existing statutory ban on multiwinner elections for Congress.
- t-3 4y ago
  We don't need anything so complicated, we just need to return to the house and electoral college being periodically resized according to census data rather than fixed at 435. Those reversions would solve most electoral problems without even needing to touch hard issues of engineering fair an trustworthy alternative voting systems.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > Those reversions would solve most electoral problems No, they wouldn't, as the problems (including duopoly) predate the changes you would reverse.
    - t-3 4y ago
      The population, level of urbanization, and amount of information were all far less back then. It would be a lot harder for two parties to completely control an 8000 member congress or gerrymander that many districts.
cowmoo728 4y ago
Real reform is not palatable. The correct reforms include rotating appointments on the Supreme Court, abolishing the Senate, re-apportioning the House, and changing the presidency to have significantly less power. But something like this is not achievable with the current ossification of our dysfunctional political systems in the US. Given that, I still believe ranked choice voting is the first baby step toward more representative politics.

robonerd 4y ago

I think ranked choice voting is too nerdy for much of the general public to understand; not the principle of it but the actual practice of how to tally votes and calculate the winner. Given the choice between a voting system the public demonstrably tolerates even though it isn't mathematically fair, and a voting system that is mathematically fair but is likely to cause confusion and distrust in elections, I prefer the former. You could change my mind by showing that ranked choice voting systems can be taught to even the most common of midwits.

anonporridge 4y ago
I personally slightly prefer approval voting (e.g. select all candidates you like, no ranking, most votes wins). It's simpler for voters and RCV is more likely that people will be lazy and only select one choice. But it does have the problem that many people will think it violates one person, one vote. There are municipalities and states that have implemented both. Voters handle them fine. More importantly, a large minority of people in the US who already believe the current voting system isn't fair, so why are you afraid RCV will make it worse? I think it will be the opposite, since it is likely to cool the political polarization and encourage the election of more moderate politicians that a larger majority are ok with.
- robonerd 4y ago
  > I personally slightly prefer approval voting (e.g. select all candidates you like, no ranking, most votes wins). Yes, I like this one a lot more. > There are municipalities and states that have implemented both. I think for low-stake elections that most people don't vote in anyway, experimentation is relatively safe. But I wouldn't want to try anything new with fiery federal elections, particularly not the presidential election. The risk of confusion resulting in costly civil unrest is too high. > More importantly, a large minority of people in the US who already believe the current voting system isn't fair Yes, but they tolerate it for the most part.
  - anonporridge 4y ago
    > Yes, but they tolerate it for the most part. Arguable after the 2020 election.

TheRealDunkirk 4y ago

I used to be a big proponent of ranked choice voting, but then I finally stepped back and realized that it doesn't seem to necessarily produce more "inclusive" or "unifying" outcomes. Change my mind.

boardwaalk 4y ago
It's a little presumptuous to come in and say "I don't believe this, change my mind." I don't think anybody is going to bother to, frankly. You ought to put in a slight amount of effort and give some modicum of evidence.
- TheRealDunkirk 4y ago
  “Change my mind” is a meme. Sheesh.

Beldin 4y ago

District-based elections, where each district had one winner, tend to lead to two-party systems. The counting mechanism doesn't meaningfully impact this. If you want to change this, you can expand current districts to cover multiple seats. That way, second-placed, third-placed, and so on, candidates also get seats. Depending on the #seats of the district. Parties could run multiple candidates, since there are multiple seats. For the US, districts with e.g. 5 seats would be very interesting. The effect would be two-fold: first, more distinctiveness between candidates of the same party. Extreme example: a prolife Democrat, a gun-regulation Republican running alongside more traditional candidates. Secondly, at least some candidates outside the 2 major parties will get a seat. This probably means no more majority in House/Senate, but a need to form a coalition. That means talking with each other and reaching agreement would no longer be the newsworthy exception it is today, but would be part of the very fabric of the House/Senate. I don't see how a different counting mechanism could lead to the same effects.