3 ms·

>imo proof that ranked choice is absolutely needed Ranked choice still succumbs to a spoiler effect. https://realrcv.equal.vote/alaska22 https://realrcv.equal.

by amavect 7mo ago

>imo proof that ranked choice is absolutely needed Ranked choice still succumbs to a spoiler effect. https://realrcv.equal.vote/alaska22 https://realrcv.equal.vote/alaska22 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhO6jfHPFQU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhO6jfHPFQU Approval voting works better and simpler, and STAR voting works even better though with more complexity. https://www.equal.vote/beyond_rcv_zine https://www.equal.vote/beyond_rcv_zine

HDThoreaun 7mo ago
Approval makes the game theory too complicated imo. Too easy to think of cases where a voter leaves off someone because they want their favorite to win but then ends up with neither winning. STAR is the best but voters might be too stupid to figure it out. Really multi district is the best but unfortunately no chance of that happening it seems
- amavect 7mo ago
  I think the threat of unapproved candidates winning would lower a voter's approval threshold to include other candidates. Increasing the approval threshold happens when the voter likes all of the candidates, in which case there isn't too much of a problem. I really want to believe that ordinary people can handle STAR voting. Not too far from product reviews: most will initially vote 5, 4, or 0. As long as the system encourages more honest voting (instead of lesser-evil voting), it can help fix our corrupt political system. Full agreement with multi district/proportional, but I don't know how to sell it to normal people (they want THEIR representative).
chimeracoder 7mo ago
> Ranked choice still succumbs to a spoiler effect. https://realrcv.equal.vote/alaska22 https://realrcv.equal.vote/alaska22 That website presents an unconvincing argument and uses it to arrive at a conclusion that is at odds with the extensive academic research on this topic.
- amavect 7mo ago
  Academic research concludes that ranked-choice and vote-for-one both result in a center-squeeze spoiler effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_squeeze https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_squeeze
  - chimeracoder 7mo ago
    > Academic research concludes that ranked-choice and vote-for-one both result in a center-squeeze spoiler effect. No, it's more complicated than that. All voting systems have the potential for spoiler effects (in the broadest sense of the term). That's a core and long-proven theorem in social choice theory. What's more relevant is how those actually play out under the conditions in which they're used. And it turns out that, while pathological cases are still mathematically possible, in practice, under the conditions that typically apply to our elections, RCV is actually less likely to produce these effects than other systems. The idea that approval voting, STAR voting, or Condorcet voting is superior to RCV for this reason is a misconception based on decades-old research that is no longer current. (Also, the website linked above is not a correct demonstration of the effect you linked, although I can see how the confusion happened).
    - amavect 7mo ago
      Can you share some actual evidence for your case? I really don't believe it. The anti-RCV story about Alaska 2022 holds that Palin spoiled round 1 of the instant runoff by splitting the vote with Begich, causing Begich to drop out. RCV only beats vote-for-one, unless you can make a convincing case otherwise. https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.04764v3 https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.04764v3 (Yes, I agree with the conclusion of this paper, but I argue that we can do better with Approval or STAR.) Basic modelling on a 2D political compass gives a Yee diagram, demonstrating RCV's counterintuitive results. Yeah, that's theory, but Alaska 2022 demonstrates a real case of it. And the list of center-squeeze cases on the Wikipedia page, too. http://zesty.ca/voting/sim http://zesty.ca/voting/sim https://electowiki.org/wiki/Yee_diagram https://electowiki.org/wiki/Yee_diagram > That's a core and long-proven theorem in social choice theory. Do you mean Arrow's theorem? Doesn't apply to STAR or Approval. > The idea that approval voting, STAR voting, or Condorcet voting is superior to RCV for this reason is a misconception based on decades-old research that is no longer current. Share the research, please! Here's some recent research, obviously biased for STAR and against RCV. https://www.equal.vote/peer_review https://www.equal.vote/peer_review

by amavect 7mo ago

HDThoreaun 7mo ago

Approval makes the game theory too complicated imo. Too easy to think of cases where a voter leaves off someone because they want their favorite to win but then ends up with neither winning. STAR is the best but voters might be too stupid to figure it out. Really multi district is the best but unfortunately no chance of that happening it seems

amavect 7mo ago
I think the threat of unapproved candidates winning would lower a voter's approval threshold to include other candidates. Increasing the approval threshold happens when the voter likes all of the candidates, in which case there isn't too much of a problem. I really want to believe that ordinary people can handle STAR voting. Not too far from product reviews: most will initially vote 5, 4, or 0. As long as the system encourages more honest voting (instead of lesser-evil voting), it can help fix our corrupt political system. Full agreement with multi district/proportional, but I don't know how to sell it to normal people (they want THEIR representative).

chimeracoder 7mo ago

> Ranked choice still succumbs to a spoiler effect. https://realrcv.equal.vote/alaska22 https://realrcv.equal.vote/alaska22 That website presents an unconvincing argument and uses it to arrive at a conclusion that is at odds with the extensive academic research on this topic.

amavect 7mo ago
Academic research concludes that ranked-choice and vote-for-one both result in a center-squeeze spoiler effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_squeeze https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_squeeze
- chimeracoder 7mo ago
  > Academic research concludes that ranked-choice and vote-for-one both result in a center-squeeze spoiler effect. No, it's more complicated than that. All voting systems have the potential for spoiler effects (in the broadest sense of the term). That's a core and long-proven theorem in social choice theory. What's more relevant is how those actually play out under the conditions in which they're used. And it turns out that, while pathological cases are still mathematically possible, in practice, under the conditions that typically apply to our elections, RCV is actually less likely to produce these effects than other systems. The idea that approval voting, STAR voting, or Condorcet voting is superior to RCV for this reason is a misconception based on decades-old research that is no longer current. (Also, the website linked above is not a correct demonstration of the effect you linked, although I can see how the confusion happened).
  - amavect 7mo ago
    Can you share some actual evidence for your case? I really don't believe it. The anti-RCV story about Alaska 2022 holds that Palin spoiled round 1 of the instant runoff by splitting the vote with Begich, causing Begich to drop out. RCV only beats vote-for-one, unless you can make a convincing case otherwise. https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.04764v3 https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.04764v3 (Yes, I agree with the conclusion of this paper, but I argue that we can do better with Approval or STAR.) Basic modelling on a 2D political compass gives a Yee diagram, demonstrating RCV's counterintuitive results. Yeah, that's theory, but Alaska 2022 demonstrates a real case of it. And the list of center-squeeze cases on the Wikipedia page, too. http://zesty.ca/voting/sim http://zesty.ca/voting/sim https://electowiki.org/wiki/Yee_diagram https://electowiki.org/wiki/Yee_diagram > That's a core and long-proven theorem in social choice theory. Do you mean Arrow's theorem? Doesn't apply to STAR or Approval. > The idea that approval voting, STAR voting, or Condorcet voting is superior to RCV for this reason is a misconception based on decades-old research that is no longer current. Share the research, please! Here's some recent research, obviously biased for STAR and against RCV. https://www.equal.vote/peer_review https://www.equal.vote/peer_review