3 ms·

This comes off as concern trolling. I don't know your underlying political biases, so just reading it neutrally, that's how it comes off. Lots of places have b

This comes off as concern trolling. I don't know your underlying political biases, so just reading it neutrally, that's how it comes off. Lots of places have been using RCV for some time. It is not hard to understand. These concerns about the importance of the "perception of fairness" are never brought up when it comes to issues like voter ID laws, elections being on work days, election holidays, publicly funded elections, etc.

d23 4y ago
On top of that, it's clearly something each individual would prefer. If I don't get my first choice, I'd rather have my vote go to my second choice than essentially no one. I know you're being downvoted, but I agree with your assessment re: concern trolling. The position seems disingenuous.
- jacobr1 4y ago
  The general points is valid one, I don't think it was disingenuous (though I agree it is probably mistaken). The broader concerns is legitimacy. It is more important that there be a general acceptance of the election results, and peaceful transition of power, than the results themselves be optimally fair. That said, there is no reason we can't have both and plenty of jurisdictions do have fairer systems without collapsing in civil war. But we should lose sight of fact that gaining buy-in from the populace at large is one of the factors required for successful democratic-governance.
yyyk 4y ago
>Lots of places have been using RCV for some time. It is not hard to understand. >These concerns about the importance of the "perception of fairness" are never brought up when it comes to issues like voter ID laws, elections being on work days, election holidays, publicly funded elections, etc. Lots of places on Earth have solved all these issues: an easily available ID, election holiday or at least early voting, public funding, automatic voter registration, etc. To those places, IRV is arguably not a very good idea, and people who live there might note this even on HN. You shouldn't reduce everything to US partisan politics.
- greenthrow 4y ago
  - yyyk 4y ago
    I don't agree about the thread topic. IRV is general should be fair enough to discuss here. Also, by the same 'logic', you could say the thread is only about Alaska politics and ask everyone not from there to shut up.
MichaelCollins 4y ago
> RCV [...] is not hard to understand. But it's not as easy to understand as "count the pottery shards, biggest number wins." To ensure peaceful transitions of power, an election should be perceived as fair by the greatest number of people possible, not merely to those who are comfortable with math. > voter ID laws Laws which disenfranchise part of the population threaten the perception of fairness, threatening the peaceful transition of power. I therefore oppose voter ID laws at least until every single citizen can be given a free national voter ID. I hope this affirmation of Democratic values assuages your 'concern trolling' concerns.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
fdsjgfklsfd 4y ago
"Lots of places have been using RCV for some time. It is not hard to understand." Then why do so many of its proponents misunderstand it?

d23 4y ago

On top of that, it's clearly something each individual would prefer. If I don't get my first choice, I'd rather have my vote go to my second choice than essentially no one. I know you're being downvoted, but I agree with your assessment re: concern trolling. The position seems disingenuous.

jacobr1 4y ago
The general points is valid one, I don't think it was disingenuous (though I agree it is probably mistaken). The broader concerns is legitimacy. It is more important that there be a general acceptance of the election results, and peaceful transition of power, than the results themselves be optimally fair. That said, there is no reason we can't have both and plenty of jurisdictions do have fairer systems without collapsing in civil war. But we should lose sight of fact that gaining buy-in from the populace at large is one of the factors required for successful democratic-governance.

yyyk 4y ago

>Lots of places have been using RCV for some time. It is not hard to understand. >These concerns about the importance of the "perception of fairness" are never brought up when it comes to issues like voter ID laws, elections being on work days, election holidays, publicly funded elections, etc. Lots of places on Earth have solved all these issues: an easily available ID, election holiday or at least early voting, public funding, automatic voter registration, etc. To those places, IRV is arguably not a very good idea, and people who live there might note this even on HN. You shouldn't reduce everything to US partisan politics.

greenthrow 4y ago
- yyyk 4y ago
  I don't agree about the thread topic. IRV is general should be fair enough to discuss here. Also, by the same 'logic', you could say the thread is only about Alaska politics and ask everyone not from there to shut up.

MichaelCollins 4y ago

> RCV [...] is not hard to understand. But it's not as easy to understand as "count the pottery shards, biggest number wins." To ensure peaceful transitions of power, an election should be perceived as fair by the greatest number of people possible, not merely to those who are comfortable with math. > voter ID laws Laws which disenfranchise part of the population threaten the perception of fairness, threatening the peaceful transition of power. I therefore oppose voter ID laws at least until every single citizen can be given a free national voter ID. I hope this affirmation of Democratic values assuages your 'concern trolling' concerns.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

fdsjgfklsfd 4y ago

"Lots of places have been using RCV for some time. It is not hard to understand." Then why do so many of its proponents misunderstand it?