3 ms·

> On that note, I don't see any issue whatsoever with 82 people running for presidency I wouldn't have an issue if the election used ranked choice voting. Oth

> On that note, I don't see any issue whatsoever with 82 people running for presidency I wouldn't have an issue if the election used ranked choice voting. Otherwise, however, it could be a disaster, with the winning candidate only having a tiny percentage of the vote.

saevarom 3y ago
In Iceland, the president is chosen by simple majority of votes. The sitting president got about 39% of the vote. There were 9 candidates. Of course, this problem is usually brushed off saying that this is a largely powerless office, the prime minister and his cabinet hold the executive power.
- saulpw 3y ago
  A majority of votes would be 50.1%. More votes than any other candidate is called a plurality.
isoos 3y ago
Nit: Approval voting (yes/no for each candidate) is easier to implement and also understand. I couldn't rank 82 people, but could yes/no them...
- andersa 3y ago
  As long as you can answer a (long) series of "do you prefer A or B" questions, you can totally rank 82 people.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    If I was voting in this election, I'm nearly certain I would not be able to answer that for most of the 82.
    - oneeyedpigeon 3y ago
      Well, if there's an A/B pair you can't separate, just pick either at random.
      - Dylan16807 3y ago
        If my bottom 60 are all randomly shuffled then I haven't really ranked 82 people.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  Just pick your top 5 and it'll work out fine.
- mindslight 3y ago
  Approval voting is just a different flavor of the same popular candidate tyranny. We need to be able to express support for non-duopoly candidates over the duopoly ones, and not continue to be held hostage fully supporting mainstream party #1 by the threat of mainstream party #2. Unfortunately this devolves into geeking out over voting systems. Despite having the most popular support, Instant Runoff Voting is also a hot mess with its surprising nonintuitive outcomes. The way I see it, RCV/Condorcet is the way to go, regardless of the criticism that it allows for ties - it's criteria is straightforward and what most people would consider fair. Solve the ties with a tiebreaker IRV round (same input data type) or just a second election since they're going to be really rare with any significant population (how many times do we have ties with plurality?)
- juped 3y ago
  Hardly a nit when approval voting, unlike _any_ ranked-choice system, isn't mathematically shown to be inherently unsatisfactory.
627467 3y ago
People end up taking some many unplanned and unwanted responsibilitiesz why isn't governing one of those? Why isn't any fellow citizen a good leader than any other?
- andsoitis 3y ago
  > Why isn't any fellow citizen a good leader than any other? Because even you would agree that some people are better leaders than others. People aren’t good at something (e.g. leading a country in the modern and complex time) juts because you wish it so.
juped 3y ago
Ranked choice voting? The one with a litany of famous theorems about how no ranked-choice voting system is satisfactory? (Arrow, Gibbard-Satterthwaite, &c.) Why would one ever want ranked-choice voting? It isn't even deranged in a way that advantages some type of candidate, it's just mathematically deranged.
- extraduder_ire 3y ago
  Does it not being satisfactory mean it's worse than FPTP voting in the case where you're electing a single person?

saevarom 3y ago

In Iceland, the president is chosen by simple majority of votes. The sitting president got about 39% of the vote. There were 9 candidates. Of course, this problem is usually brushed off saying that this is a largely powerless office, the prime minister and his cabinet hold the executive power.

saulpw 3y ago
A majority of votes would be 50.1%. More votes than any other candidate is called a plurality.

isoos 3y ago

Nit: Approval voting (yes/no for each candidate) is easier to implement and also understand. I couldn't rank 82 people, but could yes/no them...

andersa 3y ago
As long as you can answer a (long) series of "do you prefer A or B" questions, you can totally rank 82 people.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  If I was voting in this election, I'm nearly certain I would not be able to answer that for most of the 82.
  - oneeyedpigeon 3y ago
    Well, if there's an A/B pair you can't separate, just pick either at random.
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      If my bottom 60 are all randomly shuffled then I haven't really ranked 82 people.
Dylan16807 3y ago
Just pick your top 5 and it'll work out fine.
mindslight 3y ago
Approval voting is just a different flavor of the same popular candidate tyranny. We need to be able to express support for non-duopoly candidates over the duopoly ones, and not continue to be held hostage fully supporting mainstream party #1 by the threat of mainstream party #2. Unfortunately this devolves into geeking out over voting systems. Despite having the most popular support, Instant Runoff Voting is also a hot mess with its surprising nonintuitive outcomes. The way I see it, RCV/Condorcet is the way to go, regardless of the criticism that it allows for ties - it's criteria is straightforward and what most people would consider fair. Solve the ties with a tiebreaker IRV round (same input data type) or just a second election since they're going to be really rare with any significant population (how many times do we have ties with plurality?)
juped 3y ago
Hardly a nit when approval voting, unlike _any_ ranked-choice system, isn't mathematically shown to be inherently unsatisfactory.

627467 3y ago

People end up taking some many unplanned and unwanted responsibilitiesz why isn't governing one of those? Why isn't any fellow citizen a good leader than any other?

andsoitis 3y ago
> Why isn't any fellow citizen a good leader than any other? Because even you would agree that some people are better leaders than others. People aren’t good at something (e.g. leading a country in the modern and complex time) juts because you wish it so.

juped 3y ago

Ranked choice voting? The one with a litany of famous theorems about how no ranked-choice voting system is satisfactory? (Arrow, Gibbard-Satterthwaite, &c.) Why would one ever want ranked-choice voting? It isn't even deranged in a way that advantages some type of candidate, it's just mathematically deranged.

extraduder_ire 3y ago
Does it not being satisfactory mean it's worse than FPTP voting in the case where you're electing a single person?