5 ms·

Number of viable parties in long term depends on electoral system. Ranked choice alone makes multiple parties viable but it's not ideal. Yet ranked choice woul

Number of viable parties in long term depends on electoral system. Ranked choice alone makes multiple parties viable but it's not ideal. Yet ranked choice would almost certainly lead to more than two parties in the US. Electoral system is not only the voting system. Single member districts + plurality (current US system) is the worst system for representative democracy by multiple criteria, so almost any proposal improves the situation. Proportional representation (PR) is any system where seats are divided between parties/lists by their vote share. Ranked choice is not enough. The US would also need multi member districts. >By federal law, all members of the United States Congress are elected from single-member districts, and most states also elect their state legislators from single-member districts. Some states, however, utilize multi-member districts. For example, Arizona, New Jersey, South Dakota, and Washington elect all members of their lower state legislative chambers from multi-member districts. https://ballotpedia.org/Multi-member_district https://ballotpedia.org/Multi-member_district

dane-pgp 4y ago
I think that electoral reform advocates have started to accept that the public is wary of large changes to the voting system and the allocation of districts. Partly that's for good reason, since the public has seen how those aspects of the electoral process have been manipulated for partisan benefit in the past (or at least, they've been told that the other side is guilty of that, and they believe it) and it's partly because it's easy to argue against any changes by using FUD techniques, relying on people's mindset of "if it ain't broke". So it's probably right to focus on a change that's limited to just the balloting and winner-determining processes for now, hoping that a future generation of more engaged voters and more representative politicians can push for changes that lead to more proportional outcomes, as you say. The corollary of this logic, though, is that it would be better to change just the winner-determining process and not change the ballots at all. While I do think that RCV is a huge improvement to FPTP in the US, I do have some sympathy for the claim that RCV is more complicated, which can have a disenfranchising effect. For example, it introduces unfamiliar new tactical dimensions, where people might be encouraged to rank their least preferred candidate disingenuously higher than another rival in order to cause that rival to be eliminated first. More generally, it pressures voters to have to produce an exhaustive ranking of all possible candidates, some of whom they might not have heard of, and potentially penalizing voters that opt to leave some ranks unspecified. Then there's the problem of needing to use untrustworthy electronic voting machines (or a much longer manual process) to count ballot papers that have N-factorial possible markings for N candidates, in a process which strongly encourages centralization rather than being distributed. The solution to these problems is a method called Asset Voting, where ballots work exactly the same way as under FPTP, but at the end of the count, the candidates get eliminated one by one and can re-assign their votes to one of the remaining candidates. This completely removes the spoiler effect and the problem of "wasted" votes, while not introducing any extra cost or delay (other than two minutes of asking the eliminated candidates who their votes should be re-assigned to). Unfortunately, though, I don't think this method has the same momentum behind it as RCV or other popular alternatives like Approval Voting.
- Nokinside 4y ago
  Asset voting gives no guarantees whatsoever without extensive set of assumptions unless one candidate gets single majority. Most of these systems can be made better with multi-member districts. At this point D'Hondt-method is tried an true. The US could use Jefferson method (invented Thomas Jefferson) because "Murica" but it gives the same result :) I agree with you, that the most important thing is to implement some change, not strive to fix everything at once. Once voting methods change, politics change and other changes can become easier.
  - dane-pgp 4y ago
    > Asset voting gives no guarantees whatsoever I'm not sure what guarantees you require a voting system to provide. Do you not agree it is better than plurality voting? I suppose you could say that it's not "guaranteed" to solve the spoiler problem, because if you vote for a candidate who claims to have very similar policies to another candidate you like, they might turn around and betray you and re-assign your vote to another candidate you are completely opposed to. However, the fact that candidates might talk one way but act another way seems to be an issue that's common to all voting systems, and therefore out of scope. > At this point D'Hondt-method is tried an true. Any electoral change that requires an explanation of the form "First we calculate the quotient with the following formula..." is doomed to failure in a world of misinformation and vested interests trying to undermine confidence in elections. You're right, though, that in the US it would be wise to advocate for Jefferson's method, and brand it that way.
    - singhblom 4y ago
      You could require candidates to publicly disclose their ranking of the other candidates before the election. If they have to lock in their preference a few days before voting day that in itself would be informative for voters.
      - dane-pgp 4y ago
        I think candidates might be reluctant to do this, since it could be seen as an admission that the candidate thinks they might not win (although personally I would view a candidate as being arrogant and complacent if they couldn't imagine losing). You're probably right, though, that candidates should be forced to do this, and maybe they should be able to choose whether or not to disclose their preference in advance to potential voters. If they opt to keep it secret and they win, then their preference never has to be revealed, and if they are eliminated then only their highest remaining preference is revealed. Admittedly I haven't proved that there aren't times when a candidate may need to tactically reorder their preferences based on the actual distribution of votes, but I can't think of a situation where they wouldn't want to re-assign their votes to the candidate whose values are most similar to theirs / their voters.
landemva 4y ago
The number of parties depends on State election law and has nothing to do with ranked choice or proportional voting. For chicagotribune.com area it is laws in Illinois which say: - 'new political party shall become an "established political party"' and - Sec. 7-19. 'The primary ballot ..' shall be arranged and printed ...: 1. Designating words. At the top of the ballot "REPUBLICAN PRIMARY BALLOT"; "DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY BALLOT"' That is from https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs5.asp?ActID=170&ChapterID=3 https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs5.asp?ActID=170&Ch... It is State election law which creates the domination of the two-party major/minor system. It's simply hard-coded this way. Coders might say RTFM.

dane-pgp 4y ago

I think that electoral reform advocates have started to accept that the public is wary of large changes to the voting system and the allocation of districts. Partly that's for good reason, since the public has seen how those aspects of the electoral process have been manipulated for partisan benefit in the past (or at least, they've been told that the other side is guilty of that, and they believe it) and it's partly because it's easy to argue against any changes by using FUD techniques, relying on people's mindset of "if it ain't broke". So it's probably right to focus on a change that's limited to just the balloting and winner-determining processes for now, hoping that a future generation of more engaged voters and more representative politicians can push for changes that lead to more proportional outcomes, as you say. The corollary of this logic, though, is that it would be better to change just the winner-determining process and not change the ballots at all. While I do think that RCV is a huge improvement to FPTP in the US, I do have some sympathy for the claim that RCV is more complicated, which can have a disenfranchising effect. For example, it introduces unfamiliar new tactical dimensions, where people might be encouraged to rank their least preferred candidate disingenuously higher than another rival in order to cause that rival to be eliminated first. More generally, it pressures voters to have to produce an exhaustive ranking of all possible candidates, some of whom they might not have heard of, and potentially penalizing voters that opt to leave some ranks unspecified. Then there's the problem of needing to use untrustworthy electronic voting machines (or a much longer manual process) to count ballot papers that have N-factorial possible markings for N candidates, in a process which strongly encourages centralization rather than being distributed. The solution to these problems is a method called Asset Voting, where ballots work exactly the same way as under FPTP, but at the end of the count, the candidates get eliminated one by one and can re-assign their votes to one of the remaining candidates. This completely removes the spoiler effect and the problem of "wasted" votes, while not introducing any extra cost or delay (other than two minutes of asking the eliminated candidates who their votes should be re-assigned to). Unfortunately, though, I don't think this method has the same momentum behind it as RCV or other popular alternatives like Approval Voting.

Nokinside 4y ago
Asset voting gives no guarantees whatsoever without extensive set of assumptions unless one candidate gets single majority. Most of these systems can be made better with multi-member districts. At this point D'Hondt-method is tried an true. The US could use Jefferson method (invented Thomas Jefferson) because "Murica" but it gives the same result :) I agree with you, that the most important thing is to implement some change, not strive to fix everything at once. Once voting methods change, politics change and other changes can become easier.
- dane-pgp 4y ago
  > Asset voting gives no guarantees whatsoever I'm not sure what guarantees you require a voting system to provide. Do you not agree it is better than plurality voting? I suppose you could say that it's not "guaranteed" to solve the spoiler problem, because if you vote for a candidate who claims to have very similar policies to another candidate you like, they might turn around and betray you and re-assign your vote to another candidate you are completely opposed to. However, the fact that candidates might talk one way but act another way seems to be an issue that's common to all voting systems, and therefore out of scope. > At this point D'Hondt-method is tried an true. Any electoral change that requires an explanation of the form "First we calculate the quotient with the following formula..." is doomed to failure in a world of misinformation and vested interests trying to undermine confidence in elections. You're right, though, that in the US it would be wise to advocate for Jefferson's method, and brand it that way.
  - singhblom 4y ago
    You could require candidates to publicly disclose their ranking of the other candidates before the election. If they have to lock in their preference a few days before voting day that in itself would be informative for voters.
    - dane-pgp 4y ago
      I think candidates might be reluctant to do this, since it could be seen as an admission that the candidate thinks they might not win (although personally I would view a candidate as being arrogant and complacent if they couldn't imagine losing). You're probably right, though, that candidates should be forced to do this, and maybe they should be able to choose whether or not to disclose their preference in advance to potential voters. If they opt to keep it secret and they win, then their preference never has to be revealed, and if they are eliminated then only their highest remaining preference is revealed. Admittedly I haven't proved that there aren't times when a candidate may need to tactically reorder their preferences based on the actual distribution of votes, but I can't think of a situation where they wouldn't want to re-assign their votes to the candidate whose values are most similar to theirs / their voters.

landemva 4y ago

The number of parties depends on State election law and has nothing to do with ranked choice or proportional voting. For chicagotribune.com area it is laws in Illinois which say: - 'new political party shall become an "established political party"' and - Sec. 7-19. 'The primary ballot ..' shall be arranged and printed ...: 1. Designating words. At the top of the ballot "REPUBLICAN PRIMARY BALLOT"; "DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY BALLOT"' That is from https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs5.asp?ActID=170&ChapterID=3 https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs5.asp?ActID=170&Ch... It is State election law which creates the domination of the two-party major/minor system. It's simply hard-coded this way. Coders might say RTFM.