4 ms·

While internet voting could perhaps help, I think a much simpler and more powerful change would be to switch to a Condorcet method of voting. (http://en.wikipe

by splat 15y ago

While internet voting could perhaps help, I think a much simpler and more powerful change would be to switch to a Condorcet method of voting. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_voting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_voting) Nothing would do more damage to the two-party system than for the argument "if you vote for a third party, you throw your vote away" to be demolished.

LeafStorm 15y ago
Instant-runoff voting would probably be more practical. It's already used in America in some jurisdictions, so promoting it to the more major offices like President isn't as big a leap as Condorcet (since Condorcet's not actually used by any US jurisdictions).
- chimeracoder 15y ago
  Also, instant-runoff is easier to explain, because it's literally the same as holding hypothetical runoff elections on election day. With Concordet voting, listing someone as your second choice can cause your first choice to lose, which would probably confuse a lot of people.
  - bradbeattie 15y ago
    It would be misleading to gloss over IRV's significant failings if we're talking about criteria failure. * 8 people vote: A, C, B * 5 people vote: B, C, A * 4 people vote: C, B, A IRV eliminates C, despite the majority of voters preferring C over B (12 to 5). The order of elimination means that significant secondary preferences are often ignored.
    - eli 15y ago
      Sure, but you really should not underestimate how important it is that everyone understand how their vote is counted. I had a roommate who worked for a voting reform nonprofit and he said even gathering signatures for "simple" IRV is quite challenging. It's just too hard to explain quickly.
      - chc 15y ago
        Top 10 lists are not a novel concept for most people. Individual votes are precisely like that. Cumulatively, the person who did the best on everyone's lists wins. It's far simpler than the system we have now. The plural of anecdote isn't evidence, I know, but: I had Condorcet voting briefly explained to me at a young age, and I grasped it immediately. I couldn't do the math, but it was conceptually really easy to grasp. I didn't fully understand the current US system until around age 20.
        chimeracoder 15y ago
        > I had Condorcet voting briefly explained to me at a young age, and I grasped it immediately. Unfortunately, HN readers are not representative of the general population. It's not that complicated, no, but I can see people having a lot more trouble with understanding Concordet voting than with understanding IRV.
    - wisty 15y ago
      Here's another hypothetical example: 6 * Republicans, Libertarians, Democrats; 5 * Democrats, Libertarians, Republicans; 2 * Libertarians, Democrats, Republicans. Liberians are eliminated (despite the majority of voters preferring them over the Democrats), and Democrats win. Notice how when you use party names, it makes more sense? The Republican and Democrat voters are simply voting "anyone but the other major party". If they are neck-to-neck on primary votes, then the secondary votes of the minor parties start to be counted. This is a feature, not a bug.
      - bradbeattie 15y ago
        I see your point here, but all voters in your mockup presented the Libertarians as their first or second choice. As a compromise candidate, that's not a bad option. Further, I don't think real-world voting would match up exactly with the above. There are people that would vote R/D/L and D/R/L, both of which are lacking from this example that would swing things away from the Libertarians.
  - chipsy 15y ago
    We had an IRV election(under the name "ranked choice voting") in SF. It had some problems: 1. Anecdotes of people thinking it was literally three votes, or people who only voted for the first round, still came up. 2. Voting was too tactical for most people's tastes; in the mayoral race a majority never appeared, thus there were ultimately 11 rounds of runoffs(with 12 candidates), yet you could only pick the top three; voting only for minority candidates left your vote out in the final rounds as they got eliminated. 3. The election still had historic-low turnout. On the other hand, I still think the result showed a lot of promise.
- jacques_chester 15y ago
  IRV is used in Australia in national, state and local elections with very little fuss. Most of our systems are "exhaustive", meaning you must fully order the candidates.
username3 15y ago
Everyone should just have a profile they could update with their candidates ranked in order of preference. Representatives could know how they're doing in real-time. No more polling. On voting day, your list is locked in.
andylei 15y ago
> the argument "if you vote for a third party, you throw your vote away" to be demolished i don't understand. your vote is basically thrown away regardless of who you vote for. the statistical likelihood that your vote has any impact except in the tightest of races is miniscule. do people really believe that their vote is "not thrown away" only if they vote for the winning candidate?
bradbeattie 15y ago
The only problem with Condorcet methods is that people aren't used to them. Get people using them for book clubs, school boards, etc first. Only when they're comfortable with it and trust that it can provide fair results will they consider it. To that end, I built https://modernballots.com https://modernballots.com. It's difficult to get mindshare when it comes to these kinds of things though. Electoral reform activists are fractured between their own preferred methods. Kinda keeps things from going anywhere.
- 18pfsmt 15y ago
  Perhaps if you named it something else and had people vote on more frivolous topics like hottest celebrity, best band, best city, etc.? Don't even mention politics at all.
sirclueless 15y ago
I understand your inclination towards doing away with a two-party system, but as long as we elect exactly one president, a two-party system does tend towards moderate policy. My intuition on this goes as follows: Imagine one single spectrum of policy, that goes from "Left" to "Right" for example. Assume voters exist somewhere on this spectrum, and will vote for the candidate whose policy is nearest to theirs on the spectrum. Then so long as there are exactly two viable candidates then they both have no incentive to deviate from the median voter. Each candidate picks up one whole side of the spectrum, and the only thing that can happen as a candidate makes their policy more extreme is that the median voters begin to see the other candidate as closer. Of course, the actual US election system is far more complex. Very extreme voters do in fact "throw their vote away" if both candidates appear far from their policy. There are a lot more issues than just one, so a single spectrum of policy is oversimplified. Many voters vote on individual issues, which are often black and white (e.g. pro-life/choice, for/against gay marriage). You could probably argue that candidates actual policies have very little to do with their stated policies, or that voters are significantly more swayed by advertising dollars than policy. All of these are real concerns, but I think the basic point stands: a two-party system encourages both candidates to situate themselves at more or less the median of the American electorate, which I consider a desirable outcome.

by splat 15y ago

LeafStorm 15y ago

Instant-runoff voting would probably be more practical. It's already used in America in some jurisdictions, so promoting it to the more major offices like President isn't as big a leap as Condorcet (since Condorcet's not actually used by any US jurisdictions).

chimeracoder 15y ago
Also, instant-runoff is easier to explain, because it's literally the same as holding hypothetical runoff elections on election day. With Concordet voting, listing someone as your second choice can cause your first choice to lose, which would probably confuse a lot of people.
- bradbeattie 15y ago
  It would be misleading to gloss over IRV's significant failings if we're talking about criteria failure. * 8 people vote: A, C, B * 5 people vote: B, C, A * 4 people vote: C, B, A IRV eliminates C, despite the majority of voters preferring C over B (12 to 5). The order of elimination means that significant secondary preferences are often ignored.
  - eli 15y ago
    Sure, but you really should not underestimate how important it is that everyone understand how their vote is counted. I had a roommate who worked for a voting reform nonprofit and he said even gathering signatures for "simple" IRV is quite challenging. It's just too hard to explain quickly.
    - chc 15y ago
      Top 10 lists are not a novel concept for most people. Individual votes are precisely like that. Cumulatively, the person who did the best on everyone's lists wins. It's far simpler than the system we have now. The plural of anecdote isn't evidence, I know, but: I had Condorcet voting briefly explained to me at a young age, and I grasped it immediately. I couldn't do the math, but it was conceptually really easy to grasp. I didn't fully understand the current US system until around age 20.
      - chimeracoder 15y ago
        > I had Condorcet voting briefly explained to me at a young age, and I grasped it immediately. Unfortunately, HN readers are not representative of the general population. It's not that complicated, no, but I can see people having a lot more trouble with understanding Concordet voting than with understanding IRV.
  - wisty 15y ago
    Here's another hypothetical example: 6 * Republicans, Libertarians, Democrats; 5 * Democrats, Libertarians, Republicans; 2 * Libertarians, Democrats, Republicans. Liberians are eliminated (despite the majority of voters preferring them over the Democrats), and Democrats win. Notice how when you use party names, it makes more sense? The Republican and Democrat voters are simply voting "anyone but the other major party". If they are neck-to-neck on primary votes, then the secondary votes of the minor parties start to be counted. This is a feature, not a bug.
    - bradbeattie 15y ago
      I see your point here, but all voters in your mockup presented the Libertarians as their first or second choice. As a compromise candidate, that's not a bad option. Further, I don't think real-world voting would match up exactly with the above. There are people that would vote R/D/L and D/R/L, both of which are lacking from this example that would swing things away from the Libertarians.
- chipsy 15y ago
  We had an IRV election(under the name "ranked choice voting") in SF. It had some problems: 1. Anecdotes of people thinking it was literally three votes, or people who only voted for the first round, still came up. 2. Voting was too tactical for most people's tastes; in the mayoral race a majority never appeared, thus there were ultimately 11 rounds of runoffs(with 12 candidates), yet you could only pick the top three; voting only for minority candidates left your vote out in the final rounds as they got eliminated. 3. The election still had historic-low turnout. On the other hand, I still think the result showed a lot of promise.
jacques_chester 15y ago
IRV is used in Australia in national, state and local elections with very little fuss. Most of our systems are "exhaustive", meaning you must fully order the candidates.

username3 15y ago

Everyone should just have a profile they could update with their candidates ranked in order of preference. Representatives could know how they're doing in real-time. No more polling. On voting day, your list is locked in.

andylei 15y ago

> the argument "if you vote for a third party, you throw your vote away" to be demolished i don't understand. your vote is basically thrown away regardless of who you vote for. the statistical likelihood that your vote has any impact except in the tightest of races is miniscule. do people really believe that their vote is "not thrown away" only if they vote for the winning candidate?

bradbeattie 15y ago

The only problem with Condorcet methods is that people aren't used to them. Get people using them for book clubs, school boards, etc first. Only when they're comfortable with it and trust that it can provide fair results will they consider it. To that end, I built https://modernballots.com https://modernballots.com. It's difficult to get mindshare when it comes to these kinds of things though. Electoral reform activists are fractured between their own preferred methods. Kinda keeps things from going anywhere.

18pfsmt 15y ago
Perhaps if you named it something else and had people vote on more frivolous topics like hottest celebrity, best band, best city, etc.? Don't even mention politics at all.

sirclueless 15y ago

I understand your inclination towards doing away with a two-party system, but as long as we elect exactly one president, a two-party system does tend towards moderate policy. My intuition on this goes as follows: Imagine one single spectrum of policy, that goes from "Left" to "Right" for example. Assume voters exist somewhere on this spectrum, and will vote for the candidate whose policy is nearest to theirs on the spectrum. Then so long as there are exactly two viable candidates then they both have no incentive to deviate from the median voter. Each candidate picks up one whole side of the spectrum, and the only thing that can happen as a candidate makes their policy more extreme is that the median voters begin to see the other candidate as closer. Of course, the actual US election system is far more complex. Very extreme voters do in fact "throw their vote away" if both candidates appear far from their policy. There are a lot more issues than just one, so a single spectrum of policy is oversimplified. Many voters vote on individual issues, which are often black and white (e.g. pro-life/choice, for/against gay marriage). You could probably argue that candidates actual policies have very little to do with their stated policies, or that voters are significantly more swayed by advertising dollars than policy. All of these are real concerns, but I think the basic point stands: a two-party system encourages both candidates to situate themselves at more or less the median of the American electorate, which I consider a desirable outcome.