4 ms·

> Children seem to handle quiz questions like "rank these animals from smallest to largest" just fine. Do they, though? Does "largest" mean "tallest" or "heav

> Children seem to handle quiz questions like "rank these animals from smallest to largest" just fine. Do they, though? Does "largest" mean "tallest" or "heaviest"? Is a tiger bigger than a lion? Do you mean the male of the species or the female? Sorry if that's strawmanning your argument, but I think that the parent post had a valid point. Ranked choice voting requires that either the voter has a fully formed opinion on all the candidates running, or that they leave some candidates unranked (which makes some people's votes less expressive/powerful than other people's). Maybe in every election you've taken part in, you've studied the manifestos and voting records of all the candidates, in which case well done and thank you for your civic diligence, but RCV would (hopefully) make it common for a dozen different parties to compete, most of which a given voter would have varying degrees of support for. Do you really think that the average US voter could memorize an ordering for a list of 12 names? Perhaps 90% of voters could, and perhaps the remaining 10% of voters don't "deserve" to have their votes fully count, or maybe RCV is such an improvement that this level of disenfranchisement is worth it, but that's not self-evidently true and I don't think the parent post's criticism can be so easily dismissed.

pessimizer 4y ago
> or that they leave some candidates unranked Illegal in Australia. You're required to have an ordered opinion on the relative fitness of every candidate under pain of law, or at least to pretend to have one.
- D-Coder 4y ago
  Explanation of Australia's RCV: https://fairvote.org/ranked-choice-voting-and-australia-s-upcoming-elections-a-primer/ https://fairvote.org/ranked-choice-voting-and-australia-s-up... (although this is from 2013). I think they are doing it wrong. RCV is usually "rank the candidates that you know/care about." In any case, as you say "at least to pretend to have (an opinion)", Australian voters probably just rank the ones they don't know/care about in the order that they appear on the ballot. And since those are probably little-known candidates, it doesn't matter, they aren't getting high votes anyway.
antifa 4y ago
> Do they, though? Does "largest" mean "tallest" or "heaviest"? Is a tiger bigger than a lion? Do you mean the male of the species or the female? In the children's quiz, it's about objective facts and they're not trying to do "gotchas". The voting will be about opinions. > Do you really think that the average US voter could memorize an ordering for a list of 12 names? I expect the voter to show with 1-3 top names, rank them first, then rank everyone else by their preferred party, then the least bad person of the opposition party. I also expect things like pirate/socialist/green/libertarian parties to win elections they otherwise would have been strategic throwaway spoilers in. > maybe RCV is such an improvement that this level of disenfranchisement is worth it Another user mentioned something like giving each candidate a 1-5 star rating, I thought that idea was worth exploring.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  In the children's quiz, children can both think that elephants are heavier and that giraffes are taller, and not know what you mean by "bigger." If you're saying that a ranked choice quiz given to children can force them to identify with opinions that they don't have e.g. force them to say that giraffes are "bigger," I'd agree, but the only gotcha is "gotcha to record an opinion that you don't actually have." In ranked choice voting, can I say that one candidate is worthwhile, and all the others would be catastrophic? Can I say that the top five are passable, but the other two are Nazis?

pessimizer 4y ago

> or that they leave some candidates unranked Illegal in Australia. You're required to have an ordered opinion on the relative fitness of every candidate under pain of law, or at least to pretend to have one.

D-Coder 4y ago
Explanation of Australia's RCV: https://fairvote.org/ranked-choice-voting-and-australia-s-upcoming-elections-a-primer/ https://fairvote.org/ranked-choice-voting-and-australia-s-up... (although this is from 2013). I think they are doing it wrong. RCV is usually "rank the candidates that you know/care about." In any case, as you say "at least to pretend to have (an opinion)", Australian voters probably just rank the ones they don't know/care about in the order that they appear on the ballot. And since those are probably little-known candidates, it doesn't matter, they aren't getting high votes anyway.

antifa 4y ago

> Do they, though? Does "largest" mean "tallest" or "heaviest"? Is a tiger bigger than a lion? Do you mean the male of the species or the female? In the children's quiz, it's about objective facts and they're not trying to do "gotchas". The voting will be about opinions. > Do you really think that the average US voter could memorize an ordering for a list of 12 names? I expect the voter to show with 1-3 top names, rank them first, then rank everyone else by their preferred party, then the least bad person of the opposition party. I also expect things like pirate/socialist/green/libertarian parties to win elections they otherwise would have been strategic throwaway spoilers in. > maybe RCV is such an improvement that this level of disenfranchisement is worth it Another user mentioned something like giving each candidate a 1-5 star rating, I thought that idea was worth exploring.

pessimizer 4y ago
In the children's quiz, children can both think that elephants are heavier and that giraffes are taller, and not know what you mean by "bigger." If you're saying that a ranked choice quiz given to children can force them to identify with opinions that they don't have e.g. force them to say that giraffes are "bigger," I'd agree, but the only gotcha is "gotcha to record an opinion that you don't actually have." In ranked choice voting, can I say that one candidate is worthwhile, and all the others would be catastrophic? Can I say that the top five are passable, but the other two are Nazis?