3 ms·

To start off with, I think our elections are some of the best in the world and ranked-choice voting is a good system to use in that it's simple enough to explai

To start off with, I think our elections are some of the best in the world and ranked-choice voting is a good system to use in that it's simple enough to explain and to work at scale, and still gives fair outcomes. However, I don't particularly like the way we talk about it. I've heard a lot of people say things like, "You can't waste your vote." This is frankly untrue and there were even examples in the last election where certain voters could have voted strategically (e.g. by not making their favourite candidate their first preference).

DimmieMan 4y ago
Example seats? I’m curious to see how this edge case played out. Generally if you put someone above your ‘2 party preferred’ candidate either your vote flows down or it was irrelevant. Was it razor thin on first preference then the bottom 2 or 3 crackpots sealing the deal? This is the only way I can think of that’wasted vote’ happening.
- scaredginger 4y ago
  Nah, let's say there are 3 candidates: A, B and C. A wins a plurality of first preference votes. Otherwise, voters are split between B and C. We assume that if a candidate places C as their first preference, they will place B as their second preference, and vice-versa. In this scenario, whoever gets more first preference votes out of B and C will win the election since the other will place third and get knocked out of the race, so anybody who placed A as their first preference didn't get to express whether they'd prefer B or C. If it wasn't obvious, A: LNP B/C: Labor/Greens https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/federal/2022/guide/bris https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/federal/2022/guide/bri...
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    Is it known that B/C voters strategically voted to knock out A?
    - scaredginger 4y ago
      B and C voters aren't strategic here. If they wish to knock out A, then placing A at the bottom would not be strategic voting. The point is that A voters arguably should have voted such that they could influence which of the two other candidates (B and C) won. This would require 'lying' about which candidate is their favourite; i.e. strategic voting
ojkelly 4y ago
Ah sorry, I had a feeling that phrase was going to be problematic. I tried to surround it with the context around the game theory required in first past the post. To clarify what I meant, with FPTP you have to be quite tactical because of how that system fundamentally works. With Ranked Choice the effect and likelihood is far less. Importantly the second order effects are meaningful. Even if your vote was exhausted it still captures your opinion, and can influence the next election because you can record your opinion for others to see. With FPTP, we don’t record everyone’s opinion on who is best suited for office, rather we record who you think everyone thinks will win (else your vote can be wasted or work against your intent). IMHO if you need to vote strategically with Ranked Choice, it’s implementation has been warped and needs to be improved. Like everything brevity is required before you can dive into the nuance. Perhaps a better way to describe ranked choice is that you can’t waste your vote like you can with FPTP. Wasting a vote has a much more specific meaning than the general usage I come across, which complicates this more. [0] [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasted_vote https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasted_vote
- rmccue 4y ago
  Worth noting that (at least for national elections) your first preference also affects which political parties receive funding, so there’s an advantage to preferencing a party first even if they won’t be elected.
- scaredginger 4y ago
  Fair enough, I mostly agree with you. I was just trying to say that it's not really feasible to eliminate game theory from voting entirely. I wish that nuance was discussed, but seeing as so many people still seem to think they can only put an LNP or Labor candidate for their first preference, I may be fighting a losing battle
  - ojkelly 4y ago
    I feel like a law of game theory is you can’t eliminate game theory. But, I think it needs to be minimised to such an extent that we don’t need to bring it up. And that, even if your vote doesn’t elect someone this election, it sends a powerful message (because it’s your honest genuine intention) for the next. I don’t think it’s a losing battle. If anything the last Australian federal election showed not only how good Ranked Choice is at conveying voter intention, but that a meaningful number of us understand it. The LNP stopped representing their base (perhaps in a similar way to the ALP with the Greens) which opened the door for the Teal independents. As an outsider looking in to US politics it appears as though similar issues exist, but there are no viable alternatives. In a positive sign for democracy US voters largely rejected candidates who were sowing doubt about the elections. Related this thread [0] is a nice dive into the changing political landscape around the world as we age. It’s not following the expected path, and I think a lot has to do with us being more educated than ever. [0] https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323?s=46&t=DWSLAiQkpuBdN8em_HtMQA https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323?...
nhinck2 4y ago
There is a world of difference between a vote being wasted and a votes power not being maximised.

DimmieMan 4y ago

Example seats? I’m curious to see how this edge case played out. Generally if you put someone above your ‘2 party preferred’ candidate either your vote flows down or it was irrelevant. Was it razor thin on first preference then the bottom 2 or 3 crackpots sealing the deal? This is the only way I can think of that’wasted vote’ happening.

scaredginger 4y ago
Nah, let's say there are 3 candidates: A, B and C. A wins a plurality of first preference votes. Otherwise, voters are split between B and C. We assume that if a candidate places C as their first preference, they will place B as their second preference, and vice-versa. In this scenario, whoever gets more first preference votes out of B and C will win the election since the other will place third and get knocked out of the race, so anybody who placed A as their first preference didn't get to express whether they'd prefer B or C. If it wasn't obvious, A: LNP B/C: Labor/Greens https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/federal/2022/guide/bris https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/federal/2022/guide/bri...
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  Is it known that B/C voters strategically voted to knock out A?
  - scaredginger 4y ago
    B and C voters aren't strategic here. If they wish to knock out A, then placing A at the bottom would not be strategic voting. The point is that A voters arguably should have voted such that they could influence which of the two other candidates (B and C) won. This would require 'lying' about which candidate is their favourite; i.e. strategic voting

ojkelly 4y ago

Ah sorry, I had a feeling that phrase was going to be problematic. I tried to surround it with the context around the game theory required in first past the post. To clarify what I meant, with FPTP you have to be quite tactical because of how that system fundamentally works. With Ranked Choice the effect and likelihood is far less. Importantly the second order effects are meaningful. Even if your vote was exhausted it still captures your opinion, and can influence the next election because you can record your opinion for others to see. With FPTP, we don’t record everyone’s opinion on who is best suited for office, rather we record who you think everyone thinks will win (else your vote can be wasted or work against your intent). IMHO if you need to vote strategically with Ranked Choice, it’s implementation has been warped and needs to be improved. Like everything brevity is required before you can dive into the nuance. Perhaps a better way to describe ranked choice is that you can’t waste your vote like you can with FPTP. Wasting a vote has a much more specific meaning than the general usage I come across, which complicates this more. [0] [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasted_vote https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasted_vote

rmccue 4y ago
Worth noting that (at least for national elections) your first preference also affects which political parties receive funding, so there’s an advantage to preferencing a party first even if they won’t be elected.
scaredginger 4y ago
Fair enough, I mostly agree with you. I was just trying to say that it's not really feasible to eliminate game theory from voting entirely. I wish that nuance was discussed, but seeing as so many people still seem to think they can only put an LNP or Labor candidate for their first preference, I may be fighting a losing battle
- ojkelly 4y ago
  I feel like a law of game theory is you can’t eliminate game theory. But, I think it needs to be minimised to such an extent that we don’t need to bring it up. And that, even if your vote doesn’t elect someone this election, it sends a powerful message (because it’s your honest genuine intention) for the next. I don’t think it’s a losing battle. If anything the last Australian federal election showed not only how good Ranked Choice is at conveying voter intention, but that a meaningful number of us understand it. The LNP stopped representing their base (perhaps in a similar way to the ALP with the Greens) which opened the door for the Teal independents. As an outsider looking in to US politics it appears as though similar issues exist, but there are no viable alternatives. In a positive sign for democracy US voters largely rejected candidates who were sowing doubt about the elections. Related this thread [0] is a nice dive into the changing political landscape around the world as we age. It’s not following the expected path, and I think a lot has to do with us being more educated than ever. [0] https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323?s=46&t=DWSLAiQkpuBdN8em_HtMQA https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323?...

nhinck2 4y ago

There is a world of difference between a vote being wasted and a votes power not being maximised.