3 ms·

> ditching the ballots of those that cannot number 1 through 6 is no great loss. It's worth looking into the statistics around that. For example, one study[0]

> ditching the ballots of those that cannot number 1 through 6 is no great loss. It's worth looking into the statistics around that. For example, one study[0] found that: "Between 2004 – 2016, 32% of electorates reported more informal votes than votes in the margin between the winner and runner-up." Of course not, not all "informal votes" are due to people trying but failing to correctly fill out their ballot paper, but the study also found that "more candidates cause more informal votes", so the complexity of the ballots was clearly a factor. The fact that as many as a third of seats would have a different winner if every vote was counted, though, has to undermine confidence in the democratic process. And this is in a polity where voting is compulsory, so in the US it would be more likely that these informal voters just stayed at home, and the problem would be even more brushed under the carpet. [0] http://eamonmcginn.com.s3-website-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/papers/Informal_Voting.pdf http://eamonmcginn.com.s3-website-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.c...

defrost 4y ago
An interesting study, cheers for that, a few points of note that sprang out at me: - In Australia, where voting is compulsory, around 5% of votes are informal, not counting toward the outcome. So, compulsory voting (> 95% of those that can vote do vote) plus low (5%) informal voting ==> way more people vote effectively in Australia than in the USofA (by a long shot). - The abstract quote differs from the main body quote of the same: > Between 2004–2016, 32% of electorates received more informal votes than those in the margin between the winner and runner-up. Or, in other words: 32% of electorates were closely contested and could have been swayed by the ineffective votes of those that didn't pay attention to detail (is this what we want?). What isn't expanded on (in my quick skim, I could be wrong) - is that these electorates were close AFTER ranking votes were counted and less popular candidates discarded with second and third preferences thrown in. Your "conclusion" > The fact that as many as a third of seats would have a different winner if every vote was counted, though, has to undermine confidence in the democratic process. is hasty - it assumes that the informal votes, had they been proper votes (rather than drawings of a dick, etc) would have made a decisive and coordinated swing bloc large enough to tip the balance .. when, in truth, they could have been evenly split across the field and had no decisive weight. (And there are other issues, but that'll suffice for now).
- dane-pgp 4y ago
  Thanks for digging into that study and providing the extra context. You make a great point that Australian elections, even with the informal votes, have a greater quantity of voter expressions, and also a greater quality of expressions, since the ranking provides more fine-grained data about the voter's wishes (for those voters who can effectively wield that vote). That is the beginning of quite a compelling argument that the Australian electoral system probably, in practice, produces better outcomes than FPTP in the US, even with the additional losses it incurs due to its complexity. I also admit that we don't really have data on how many of those 32% of electorates actually would be affected in practice, for the reasons you mention (which is why I went with the slightly "safe" language of "as many as a third of seats"), since this is an upper bound, but it is a worryingly high upper bound for something we want the public to have confidence in. What I probably disagree with most in your comment is the dismissive or derisive tone you take towards "those that didn't pay attention to detail". On a forum like this, it's probably a relatively popular idea that those who are the most intelligent and well-informed and have the best attention to detail, should have the most say in running the country, but it's actually a dangerously corrosive idea. Instead, we should be using our intelligence to design systems that are resilient to user error, and that have the maximal probability of picking the correct winner, while putting the smallest cognitive burden on the voter, who should be entitled to equal protection and equal representation under the law (even if those ideals are far from being met in multiple aspects of civic life).

defrost 4y ago

An interesting study, cheers for that, a few points of note that sprang out at me: - In Australia, where voting is compulsory, around 5% of votes are informal, not counting toward the outcome. So, compulsory voting (> 95% of those that can vote do vote) plus low (5%) informal voting ==> way more people vote effectively in Australia than in the USofA (by a long shot). - The abstract quote differs from the main body quote of the same: > Between 2004–2016, 32% of electorates received more informal votes than those in the margin between the winner and runner-up. Or, in other words: 32% of electorates were closely contested and could have been swayed by the ineffective votes of those that didn't pay attention to detail (is this what we want?). What isn't expanded on (in my quick skim, I could be wrong) - is that these electorates were close AFTER ranking votes were counted and less popular candidates discarded with second and third preferences thrown in. Your "conclusion" > The fact that as many as a third of seats would have a different winner if every vote was counted, though, has to undermine confidence in the democratic process. is hasty - it assumes that the informal votes, had they been proper votes (rather than drawings of a dick, etc) would have made a decisive and coordinated swing bloc large enough to tip the balance .. when, in truth, they could have been evenly split across the field and had no decisive weight. (And there are other issues, but that'll suffice for now).

dane-pgp 4y ago
Thanks for digging into that study and providing the extra context. You make a great point that Australian elections, even with the informal votes, have a greater quantity of voter expressions, and also a greater quality of expressions, since the ranking provides more fine-grained data about the voter's wishes (for those voters who can effectively wield that vote). That is the beginning of quite a compelling argument that the Australian electoral system probably, in practice, produces better outcomes than FPTP in the US, even with the additional losses it incurs due to its complexity. I also admit that we don't really have data on how many of those 32% of electorates actually would be affected in practice, for the reasons you mention (which is why I went with the slightly "safe" language of "as many as a third of seats"), since this is an upper bound, but it is a worryingly high upper bound for something we want the public to have confidence in. What I probably disagree with most in your comment is the dismissive or derisive tone you take towards "those that didn't pay attention to detail". On a forum like this, it's probably a relatively popular idea that those who are the most intelligent and well-informed and have the best attention to detail, should have the most say in running the country, but it's actually a dangerously corrosive idea. Instead, we should be using our intelligence to design systems that are resilient to user error, and that have the maximal probability of picking the correct winner, while putting the smallest cognitive burden on the voter, who should be entitled to equal protection and equal representation under the law (even if those ideals are far from being met in multiple aspects of civic life).