leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 18,863
I specified IRV with a None of the Above option.
Range Voting
- Thread starter Xulld
- Start date
I specified IRV with a None of the Above option.
Spindrift
Time Person of the Year, 2006
You need better examples, if you're trying to sell this to the common man.
Mathematical group? Ivy League schools? Sounds intimidating.
I wouldn't use Amazon as an example. It's notorious for rigged ratings.
Olympic events are judged by people who are supposed to be experts. If just anybody did the judging they wouldn't have any idea what to look for to judge properly.
You are going against centuries of entrenched behavior. You are going to need overwhelmingly compelling evidence that can be understood by the average person in a couple sentences if you really want to effect change. Better isn't a good enough reason to change.
Last edited:
Spindrift
Time Person of the Year, 2006
If you don't mean primary then don't say primary. A primary IS a formal process where all voters are allowed to participate.
You are taking the results of the forming of parties as the reason for forming parties. Parties were formed to concentrate power. It was not some ideological exercise to find the best candidate of like-minded people. It was to form a bloc which could be used to further political objectives. Candidates for office were often chosen by party bosses. At the local level that could have been one person. Finding the 'best' candidate was sometimes a side effect but it wasn't the always the goal.
This range voting plan seems to complicate an issue that apparently befuddles enough people already...
Seriously, it's the dumbest thing I have ever seen...
One person, one vote. That's simple enough isn't it? Ya know just because you CAN change sumthin doesn't mean you SHOULD
Seriously, it's the dumbest thing I have ever seen...
One person, one vote. That's simple enough isn't it? Ya know just because you CAN change sumthin doesn't mean you SHOULD
Well, I didn't come here with my cold-pitch, I came to answer the initial question.
But my cold-pitch would be "Sick of choosing between the lesser of two evils? Approval voting lets you show your support for all the candidates you would like, without any of them spoiling the election."
Also, there ARE centuries of history for approval voting. It was used for 500 years in the Republic of Venice. It was used to elect Popes for 300 years. But that was a long time ago; if I say that, you'll say "give me something recent." If I give you recent you say "but you're up against something old."
Last edited:
I hear it quite frequently (albeit often coming from my own lips).
Here's a link to an earlier JREF thread on instant runoff voting, for instance. I think I recall a number of other threads on IRV, although most of them don't appear to be tagged yet.
The issue of alternative voting systems comes up periodically in the news. Often it's local, such as when a particular city, county or state considers using different voting procedures -- so if it's not your locality, you could easily miss the news story. (Portland ME, for instance, used IRV in a mayoral election last fall.)
But it's also been in national news stories. When Lani Guinier was nominated by Bill Clinton to a high Justice Department post, for instance, she was blocked largely because she was knowledgeable about and in favor of alternative voting systems.
If you click the voting systems tag at the top of this thread, it should take you to at least some of the threads discussing alternative systems and reasons for using them.
Ah.
That would not significantly change the election outcomes.
Nevada uses plurality with NotA. It has never won. (Although by their implementation, if NotA wins, whoever comes in second is elected; it just lets people complain.)
The most common criticism -- which I have heard quite a lot, and suspect you have too -- has to do with the candidates who are selected and appear on the ballot.
I've heard many people complain, in many elections, that they don't care for either of the two major-party candidates on the ballot. But they don't feel they have any other choice, since if they vote for a third-party candidate they're essentially taking a vote away from the candidate (of the big 2) they'd prefer to win and thus increasing the chance the candidate they least prefer will win.
I've also heard that complaint in the primaries. Often there's a lesser-known (or lesser-financed) candidate whom people would prefer to see get the nomination -- but they know s/he has no chance to win the nomination, so feel they have no choice but to pick the one of the front-runners who appeals to them most / disgusts them least.
That's the thing about IRV: in general you can vote for the candidate you truly prefer without worrying that you are wasting your vote.**
I hope that's a bit more helpful in understanding the reasons why some people favor IRV. So far the discussion in this thread seems to be focused more on the mechanics of alternative voting systems (i.e. what one would expect in a thread on IRV over in the Sci/Math/Tech section of the forum) than the social aspects (i.e. what one would expect in a thread here in Social Issues).
** Yes, it is possible to construct a scenario in which you are worse off if you vote for the candidate you truly prefer.
But with the current system it takes no effort at all to construct such a scenario; it is the usual case. With IRV it's theoretically possible but in practice it's generally not the case.
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2006
- Messages
- 15,302
For me, all the posts along the lines of "too compicated, not needed" are just arguments from ignorance. There has been tons of PoliSci literature on this issue and voting systems in general. KISS just doesn't cut it.
I recommend Gaming the Vote as a layman's introduction to all the debate and research on the issue.
If you think FPTP voting equals Democracy, then there is nothing to discuss. But elections are tools for Democracy, and I think it is quite appropriate to question what systems lead to better results (And again, their are a variety of ideas about how to measure the best result).
I recommend Gaming the Vote as a layman's introduction to all the debate and research on the issue.
If you think FPTP voting equals Democracy, then there is nothing to discuss. But elections are tools for Democracy, and I think it is quite appropriate to question what systems lead to better results (And again, their are a variety of ideas about how to measure the best result).
If there is any arguments from ignorance going on , it is the folks who think that this would work in the uSA. Do you not remember all the problems we have every election with just a simple voting system? You start adding scoring in there... it's gonna be a mess.
I think range voting is simple.
We do it now in all kinds of things.
Any form you filled out that asked if you Strongly agree, agree, or disagree, or strongly disagree is really the same system. It would be a range4 system if I understand correctly.
A range two system as described (If I understand) would be even simpler.
I think saying this is too complex is saying Americans are too stupid to fill out the most basic of comment cards.
Any change is going to cause some confusion, I really do not think that is a strong argument against change . . . really for any issue.
I agree, and really I do not know what system I favor yet, that was why I posted this here to get everyone impressions. However any argument from ignorance is really just anti-productive and I have little patience for that theme.
Where I come from it is. In fact no other reasons should matter.
Quick question, did you watch the vid? If you did then color me surprised that you do not understand, I thought it was very well done, and a very easy concept.
Last edited:
I don't see how scoring candidates on a 1-wtvr scale is an improvement. I'm of the opinion that anytime you make something more complicated than it needs to be you have made it worse.
How does this make voting faster,easier and better?
btw, are the people promoting this mathematicians or engineers? that would explain a lot
How does this make voting faster,easier and better?
btw, are the people promoting this mathematicians or engineers? that would explain a lot
Did you watch the video? It made it easy to understand how much better this system is. There was three videos in that series, Id advise anyone interested to watch all three.
Plurality voting moves votes to the extremes, it forces centrists out, and it allows a lot of lesser of two evils votes, AND it causes politicians to get elected who really did not have the most support. From the vid it seems range voting helps all of these facets.
One example was that you have 2 candidates on one side, and one on the other side.
lets say 2 Democrats and 1 Republican.
The voter base is 60% Democrat, and 40% Republican.
You split the D vote between the two candidates and each gets 30%, so even with a majority of D voters you get a R candidate. Range voting removes that problem. Just this problem alone is enough for me to want something else.
The pizza example was a good one as well, Id have to watch it again to explain it properly.
3 vids, worth the watch. Each are short with good visual aids.
1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuKDXeJt7KA
2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnjJhy-YanQ&feature=relmfu
3http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0u9QXkn5uI
Last edited:
No. In practice IRV is extremely simple.
Voters are allowed (but not required) to rank the candidates. You put a 1 beside the candidate you like best. You can, if you wish, stop right there. Or, if you wish, you can put a 2 beside the candidate you like second-best. Again you can stop right there; or you can continue, putting a 3 beside the candidate you like third-best; a 4 beside the candidate you like fourth-best; a 5 beside the candidate you like fifth-best; etc.
One school I attended used IRV for student elections; no one found it confusing.
The vote-count is what is potentially confusing, especially if there is a large voting population and a large slate of candidates. But now that computers are available which can be programmed to read and count IRV ballots quickly and accurately, that no longer needs to be an obstacle.
But we don't have 3 candidates in general election usually. So you want to get rid of the primary system and just have 14 different candidates running based on a scoring system? Think about this for a second
If you went to range voting, the parties would ONLY run one candidate as they wouldn't want to risk the other side running only one and creating your above scenario. So it would always be two. So, IMO the people would have even less to do with who get's their own parties nod as the bigwigs would do it for them.
Unless you are saying we keep primaries, but where does the multiple candidates thing come from?
Last edited:
Your right currently we have that issue in primaries, and much strategic voting occurs, and many centrists are seen as not electable even when they have the popular support. We get politicians changing parties because of the issues, and much confusion even in our current system which I would not call simple just becuase its plurality voting.
Many problems that need attention in our current voting system. Im not sold one way or the other but the firs step is to acknowledge the problems and compare other systems to see if the problems are resolved. From my limited knowledge I think Range voting is far better than plurality voting (strong opinion weakly held, I need more data). We shall see, I am going to spend more time looking into the various systems.
Last edited:
BINGO.
And that's because plurality voting does a really terrible job of adjudicating three (or more) candidate races. That's why parties work so hard to ensure that only one of their members will run, and it's also why we only have two parties.
All right, let's consider the recent Republican primary. People had a choice of Michelle Bachmann, Mitt Romney, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Jon Huntsman (among others).
Let's say you lean right, and think Romney is too far to the left. You like Herman Cain and Michelle Bachman a lot, with Michelle your slight favorite of the two; you could settle for Rick Santorum; you think Newt isn't much better than Mitt, but at least he isn't the father of RomneyCare; and you think Huntsman is as bad or worse than Romney.
As things stand, you're forced to pick which one of the not-Romneys you think has the best chance of beating him. All the other folks who don't want Romney are also faced with that choice. Result: when the smoke clears, you likely wind up with Romney.
With IRV, you mark your ballot according to your preferences:
[1] Michelle Bachmann
[2] Herman Cain
[4] Newt Gingrich
[ ] Jon Huntsman
[ ] Mitt Romney
[3] Rick Santorum
1, 2, 3, 4. Easy! You don't need to agonize over which one's got the best chance to beat Romney; you just mark down which ones you truly want, in the order you truly want them.
Let's suppose there were a lot of other folks who loved Michelle as a candidate but under the current system were afraid to vote for her because they 'knew' she couldn't get the nomination. Under IRV, there's no such fear and they're free to vote their true preference. If Michelle is who people actually want they've got a good chance of getting her.
But let's suppose she's not all that popular, and that you were in a small minority. Let's suppose most of the right-leaning folks liked Rick Santorum best. Under the current system, you're out of luck if you voted your true preference; by voting for Michelle rather than Rick, you kept Rick from getting the votes he needed and Romney emerged triumphant. In November you'll have a choice between a socialist and a socialist.
But with IRV your vote isn't wasted. If most people prefer Rick to Mitt then Rick gets the votes and is declared the winner.
Same things applies from the left. If, say, in 2008 you didn't like either Clinton or Obama, and there was a lesser-known candidate who represented your views better than either Clinton or Obama, you could have freely voted for that person without worrying that by doing so you might be helping Clinton win (if you preferred Obama to Clinton) or that you might be helping Obama win (if you preferred Clinton to Obama). So again, no agonizing, no long debates with your conscience, and no feeling dirty when you emerged from the voting booth.
Under the current system, candidates tend to win because they're considered electable. Under IRV candidates tend to win because people are excited by them and want them in office.
So, there are two things that IRV proponents claim: one is that it "lets you vote for your true favorite" (which I see you've caveated; good) and the other that "it helps third parties."
The problem I have with IRV is that, as the second claim begins to approach being true, the first claim becomes more and more false.
IRV "works" fine when there are two big parties and a lot of little ones; people can rank the little ones highly, but they get eliminated, and your votes get moved back to the "proper" major party that they belong too. Okay, fine.
But when the little parties grow, that breaks down.
So consider, step one; A and B are major parties, C is a (very well-performing! 25%!) 3rd party.
45%: A > B > C
30%: B > A > C
25%: C > B > A
IRV handles this well. C is eliminated, and B wins by a narrow 55% to 45%.
But then the next election comes, and C is able to get their message out, and grows in popularity among those B-voters:
45%: A > B > C
25%: B > A > C
30%: C > B > A
C is in 2nd place now! So now the winner is... A? By a better than 2:1 margin? Well that doesn't seem right. No one's opinion of A has improved (and in fact, some people moved them from 2nd to 3rd). What happened here is that C spoiled the election, which is easy to see; if you ignore C, there's still a 45%/55% split among voters, favoring B in the A vs. B contest.
And then what happens in the NEXT election, is voters punish C. They go back to voting for B, because they'll be damned if they let A win again! Because the truth is you CAN'T vote for your favorite under IRV, not when it actually matters, which means IRV WON'T help third parties either.
Range voting (and approval voting) do not have this problem. All else held equal, as support for a third party grows, it NEVER spoils an election. Instead, at some point, the third party just wins. You can ALWAYS vote for your true, honest favorite among the candidates.
Anyway; I'd hoped to chat up the advantages of range and approval; I don't want to just bad-mouth IRV. But, considering its better name-recognition and regrettably poor outcomes, I often find it necessary.