3 ms·

Sure or some simplified version of ranked choice voting. Perhaps where only the top two choices get counted instead of having unlimited ranked choices (which ca

Sure or some simplified version of ranked choice voting. Perhaps where only the top two choices get counted instead of having unlimited ranked choices (which can get messy and be harder to audit).

JoshTriplett 2y ago
Once you've already had people rank their choices, why ignore meaningful information they've given you? In particular, models like IRV encourage people to continue ranking a compromise candidate on the top, to avoid the scenario where the compromise candidate is eliminated. In models that ignore some of people's preferences, voting "1 Preferred, 2 Lesser Evil, 3 Greater Evil" is dangerous, because your preference for Lesser Evil over Greater Evil is ignored. This creates an incentive for people to keep voting the way they do now, with the compromise candidate on the top. Approval makes sense because it's easy to explain. Condorcet makes sense because it's relatively close to ideal at the cost of making it slightly more complex to vote. Any model of the form "Ranked choice, but ignore some of the preferences" is the worst of both worlds: more complex to vote, but doesn't produce as good of an outcome.
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  I think the poster's point above was a form of ranked choice voting where you get exactly 2 choices, instead of 1 choice as in the current system. So you can vote "I like X best, I like Y second best" and that's it. This doesn't ignore anyone's choices, and is easy enough to understand. Details can be quibbled over (maybe 3 would be better than 2, for example), but it's quite clear in practice that any ranked choice voting system has to have a limit on how many choices you can express. All this is moot though - the states can't agree on creating a popular vote for the president, even though the system to do it is already being used, and there is overwhelming support. They're not going to overhaul the voting system when they can't agree on the national vote even mattering.
  - JoshTriplett 2y ago
    >This doesn't ignore anyone's choices It ignores preferences below the top 2, just like the current system ignores preferences below the top 1. It's probably an improvement, but the minor advantage in ballot design doesn't seem worth rolling out a half-measure. > but it's quite clear in practice that any ranked choice voting system has to have a limit on how many choices you can express In practice, 99% of ballots will only include the candidates listed on the ballot. Perhaps set a limit of N write-in candidates for some reasonable N, to avoid someone playing edge-case games like "you are legally obligated to count my ballot containing 200 million names!!!1!". But there's no obvious reason not to allow as many rankings as candidates on the ballot plus number of permitted write-ins. > All this is moot though - the states can't agree on creating a popular vote for the president, even though the system to do it is already being used, and there is overwhelming support. There's widespread opposition from the party that regularly loses the popular vote. I do hope it passes someday, though; it'll be a first step towards serious voting reform.

Sure or some simplified version of ranked choice voting. Perhaps where only the top two choices get counted instead of having unlimited ranked choices (which can get messy and be harder to audit).

JoshTriplett 2y ago

Once you've already had people rank their choices, why ignore meaningful information they've given you? In particular, models like IRV encourage people to continue ranking a compromise candidate on the top, to avoid the scenario where the compromise candidate is eliminated. In models that ignore some of people's preferences, voting "1 Preferred, 2 Lesser Evil, 3 Greater Evil" is dangerous, because your preference for Lesser Evil over Greater Evil is ignored. This creates an incentive for people to keep voting the way they do now, with the compromise candidate on the top. Approval makes sense because it's easy to explain. Condorcet makes sense because it's relatively close to ideal at the cost of making it slightly more complex to vote. Any model of the form "Ranked choice, but ignore some of the preferences" is the worst of both worlds: more complex to vote, but doesn't produce as good of an outcome.

tsimionescu 2y ago
I think the poster's point above was a form of ranked choice voting where you get exactly 2 choices, instead of 1 choice as in the current system. So you can vote "I like X best, I like Y second best" and that's it. This doesn't ignore anyone's choices, and is easy enough to understand. Details can be quibbled over (maybe 3 would be better than 2, for example), but it's quite clear in practice that any ranked choice voting system has to have a limit on how many choices you can express. All this is moot though - the states can't agree on creating a popular vote for the president, even though the system to do it is already being used, and there is overwhelming support. They're not going to overhaul the voting system when they can't agree on the national vote even mattering.
- JoshTriplett 2y ago
  >This doesn't ignore anyone's choices It ignores preferences below the top 2, just like the current system ignores preferences below the top 1. It's probably an improvement, but the minor advantage in ballot design doesn't seem worth rolling out a half-measure. > but it's quite clear in practice that any ranked choice voting system has to have a limit on how many choices you can express In practice, 99% of ballots will only include the candidates listed on the ballot. Perhaps set a limit of N write-in candidates for some reasonable N, to avoid someone playing edge-case games like "you are legally obligated to count my ballot containing 200 million names!!!1!". But there's no obvious reason not to allow as many rankings as candidates on the ballot plus number of permitted write-ins. > All this is moot though - the states can't agree on creating a popular vote for the president, even though the system to do it is already being used, and there is overwhelming support. There's widespread opposition from the party that regularly loses the popular vote. I do hope it passes someday, though; it'll be a first step towards serious voting reform.