4 ms·

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 an

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.
    - robonerd 4y ago
      For the most part. Tens of millions of people voted, a few hundred (maybe a few thousand) people rioted, and the rest are mostly just complaining. All in all, I'd say the current system is working pretty well.
rosnd 4y ago
Do you think that Americans are unusually stupid? Other countries manage this without any issues.
- mistermann 4y ago
  I think the most important distinction between the various scenarios is who was it that put these alternative approaches in place? Was it a consequence of public backlash and potentially against the will of the political class (which is what would be required in the US and Canada), or was it an initiative started by, or at least supported by, the political class? Another important aspect: if the public isn't sufficiently intelligent, or isn't interested in such things, how did that state come about? Does the government play any role in setting educational curriculum? Does the media play in any role in what the public focuses on, considers important, etc?
- robonerd 4y ago
  > Do you think that Americans are unusually stupid? A large minority of them are, yes. There's millions of people in this country that flunked their way through 12 years of math class and never retained anything more than basic arithmetic. 4% of Americans are classified as "functionally illiterate", that's 13 million people who effectively can't even read. The point of democracy is to placate everybody, not just the smarter portion of society, so the mechanisms of democracy should be simple enough for somebody with a simple mind to understand. "Count votes and pick who got the most" is generally such a system.

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.
  - robonerd 4y ago
    For the most part. Tens of millions of people voted, a few hundred (maybe a few thousand) people rioted, and the rest are mostly just complaining. All in all, I'd say the current system is working pretty well.

rosnd 4y ago

Do you think that Americans are unusually stupid? Other countries manage this without any issues.

mistermann 4y ago
I think the most important distinction between the various scenarios is who was it that put these alternative approaches in place? Was it a consequence of public backlash and potentially against the will of the political class (which is what would be required in the US and Canada), or was it an initiative started by, or at least supported by, the political class? Another important aspect: if the public isn't sufficiently intelligent, or isn't interested in such things, how did that state come about? Does the government play any role in setting educational curriculum? Does the media play in any role in what the public focuses on, considers important, etc?
robonerd 4y ago
> Do you think that Americans are unusually stupid? A large minority of them are, yes. There's millions of people in this country that flunked their way through 12 years of math class and never retained anything more than basic arithmetic. 4% of Americans are classified as "functionally illiterate", that's 13 million people who effectively can't even read. The point of democracy is to placate everybody, not just the smarter portion of society, so the mechanisms of democracy should be simple enough for somebody with a simple mind to understand. "Count votes and pick who got the most" is generally such a system.