5 ms·

> Ranked choice still succumbs to a spoiler effect. https://realrcv.equal.vote/alaska22 https://realrcv.equal.vote/alaska22 That website presents an unconvinci

> 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 6mo 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 6mo 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voting, or Condorcet voting is superior to RCV for this reason is a misconception based on decades-old research that is no longer current.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 6mo 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
    - amavect 6mo ago
      I'll also add this argument against RCV. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1UzTeelguY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1UzTeelguY

amavect 6mo 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 6mo 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 6mo 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
  - amavect 6mo ago
    I'll also add this argument against RCV. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1UzTeelguY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1UzTeelguY