3 ms·

This is why I endorse STAR voting: https://www.equal.vote/star https://www.equal.vote/star. The explanation behind it is simple enough for most people to unders

This is why I endorse STAR voting: https://www.equal.vote/star https://www.equal.vote/star. The explanation behind it is simple enough for most people to understand, because it's a combination of 5 star ratings, which are everywhere in society, and FPTP.

bena 4y ago
At worst, you've made single vote FPTP with extra steps. Give your guy 5, everyone else 0. The goal is to get in the runoff and to keep others out. If everyone adopts this strategy, it's the same as FPTP. At best, you're made RCV/IRV with extra steps. Because still you give your guy 5 stars, but now there's people you do not want at all. They're 0s. Then there are people you're ok with, but would rather have your guy win. They're 1s. That way, if the runoff is between one of your 0s and one of your 1s, you're making sure a 0 doesn't win. Which is exactly RCV/IRV where you've ranked them 1, 2, and 3. Past that, candidates towards the bottom of the ballot are going to get shafted. There is incredible decision fatigue in having to rank everyone 0 - 5 stars. After a while, you will either give up or just start picking more arbitrarily. RCV/IRV is fine. Condorcet is fine. Star voting is just bad.
- lalaithion 4y ago
  https://www.equal.vote/accuracy https://www.equal.vote/accuracy Star voting outperforms IRV on both 100% honest and 100% strategic election strategies. Decision fatigue is easier for Star than for IRV—just rate everyone you don't care about as a 2, whereas for IRV, if you want to distinguish between "8 people I don't know" and "person I hate", you have to decide on a ranking order for the 8 people.
- godelski 4y ago
  > At best, you're made RCV/IRV with extra steps I'd argue that every single word in this small claim is wrong. Scoring isn't equivalent to ranking unless the conditions are that you cannot score two candidates the same and that you must fill in every possible score vale (i.e. rank). Neither of these conditions are true for any cardinal system. You can score candidates the same and you can score candidates with variable distances (e.g. 5,3,2,1. Note there is no 4). This has different embedding properties. You actually can express more information in cardinal this way. Second, run-off voting is much more complicated. Cardinal systems are determined by argmax of a reduce-sum. Which is trivially parallelizable and only requires a singular election. Run-offs require multi-elections. Even in simple cases like this one, there were 2 elections (and that's with 3 candidates!). This doesn't scale well either.

bena 4y ago

At worst, you've made single vote FPTP with extra steps. Give your guy 5, everyone else 0. The goal is to get in the runoff and to keep others out. If everyone adopts this strategy, it's the same as FPTP. At best, you're made RCV/IRV with extra steps. Because still you give your guy 5 stars, but now there's people you do not want at all. They're 0s. Then there are people you're ok with, but would rather have your guy win. They're 1s. That way, if the runoff is between one of your 0s and one of your 1s, you're making sure a 0 doesn't win. Which is exactly RCV/IRV where you've ranked them 1, 2, and 3. Past that, candidates towards the bottom of the ballot are going to get shafted. There is incredible decision fatigue in having to rank everyone 0 - 5 stars. After a while, you will either give up or just start picking more arbitrarily. RCV/IRV is fine. Condorcet is fine. Star voting is just bad.

lalaithion 4y ago
https://www.equal.vote/accuracy https://www.equal.vote/accuracy Star voting outperforms IRV on both 100% honest and 100% strategic election strategies. Decision fatigue is easier for Star than for IRV—just rate everyone you don't care about as a 2, whereas for IRV, if you want to distinguish between "8 people I don't know" and "person I hate", you have to decide on a ranking order for the 8 people.
godelski 4y ago
> At best, you're made RCV/IRV with extra steps I'd argue that every single word in this small claim is wrong. Scoring isn't equivalent to ranking unless the conditions are that you cannot score two candidates the same and that you must fill in every possible score vale (i.e. rank). Neither of these conditions are true for any cardinal system. You can score candidates the same and you can score candidates with variable distances (e.g. 5,3,2,1. Note there is no 4). This has different embedding properties. You actually can express more information in cardinal this way. Second, run-off voting is much more complicated. Cardinal systems are determined by argmax of a reduce-sum. Which is trivially parallelizable and only requires a singular election. Run-offs require multi-elections. Even in simple cases like this one, there were 2 elections (and that's with 3 candidates!). This doesn't scale well either.