18 ms·

Let's say you have three candidates A, B, C. A is left, B is center, C is right leaning. Polling shows that voters are leaning: - 15% BAC - 15% BCA - 25% A

by achr2 4y ago

Let's say you have three candidates A, B, C. A is left, B is center, C is right leaning. Polling shows that voters are leaning: - 15% BAC - 15% BCA - 25% ABC - 45% CBA If everyone voted as they desired, then the instant runoff would be between B and C, with B winning with 55% of votes. If a subset of C voters instead strategically vote ACB (6%), this would change the runoff to be between A & C, with C winning 60%.

bena 4y ago
First, a run off between A and C wouldn't have C with 60%. C would have 54%, the 6% of C voters would have to come from CBA. And if A is in the runoff, that 6% stays with A. These are post facto strategies though. You can only implement that strategy if you can guarantee all of that information. Which you can only do after the election. The first problem is that polling is an estimate. If you are wrong by a couple of percentage points, the strategy fails. If the results come back 16 (BAC), 16 (BCA), 23 (ABC), 39 (CBA), 6 (ACB), B now has 32 first votes and A only has 29. Next is getting the right number of people to comply. You could easily just mess it up and have either not enough or too many people cast the strategic ballot. If only 4% or less vote ACB, the plan doesn't work. If 11% or more vote ACB, A wins. In the end, strategic voting is a bit like voter fraud, talked about way more than is actually done. And implied to be a much bigger problem than it ever could be.
- achr2 4y ago
  Oh I don't disagree, and am in the strong support of anything that moves away from FPP. The only addition I will make is that these (potentially unfounded) fears is what leads people to continue to vote strategically, such as voting BAC instead of ABC to avoid the potential of C using the strategy.
crazygringo 4y ago
And just to be clear, this makes sense. Because the relevant fact here isn't that some CBA voters put A at the front (ACB). It's that they moved B from 2nd to 3rd. So of course, that lessens support for B, so B no longer wins. People seem to present this as a flaw, when it's reflecting actual changes in voting. And this is basically impossible to do so strategically, because nobody has this level of accurate detail prior to the election.
- achr2 4y ago
  The only issue is that the (potentially unfounded) fear of strategic voting on the other side leads people to vote strategically in the same FPP manner by voting ABC instead of BAC to avoid C. But I greatly long for anything that moves us from the anti-democratic FPP.

by achr2 4y ago

bena 4y ago

First, a run off between A and C wouldn't have C with 60%. C would have 54%, the 6% of C voters would have to come from CBA. And if A is in the runoff, that 6% stays with A. These are post facto strategies though. You can only implement that strategy if you can guarantee all of that information. Which you can only do after the election. The first problem is that polling is an estimate. If you are wrong by a couple of percentage points, the strategy fails. If the results come back 16 (BAC), 16 (BCA), 23 (ABC), 39 (CBA), 6 (ACB), B now has 32 first votes and A only has 29. Next is getting the right number of people to comply. You could easily just mess it up and have either not enough or too many people cast the strategic ballot. If only 4% or less vote ACB, the plan doesn't work. If 11% or more vote ACB, A wins. In the end, strategic voting is a bit like voter fraud, talked about way more than is actually done. And implied to be a much bigger problem than it ever could be.

achr2 4y ago
Oh I don't disagree, and am in the strong support of anything that moves away from FPP. The only addition I will make is that these (potentially unfounded) fears is what leads people to continue to vote strategically, such as voting BAC instead of ABC to avoid the potential of C using the strategy.

crazygringo 4y ago

And just to be clear, this makes sense. Because the relevant fact here isn't that some CBA voters put A at the front (ACB). It's that they moved B from 2nd to 3rd. So of course, that lessens support for B, so B no longer wins. People seem to present this as a flaw, when it's reflecting actual changes in voting. And this is basically impossible to do so strategically, because nobody has this level of accurate detail prior to the election.

achr2 4y ago
The only issue is that the (potentially unfounded) fear of strategic voting on the other side leads people to vote strategically in the same FPP manner by voting ABC instead of BAC to avoid C. But I greatly long for anything that moves us from the anti-democratic FPP.