Esquire Theme by Matthew Buchanan
Social icons by Tim van Damme

19

Oct

tooyoungforthelivingdead: AV buzz on Twitter A “proportional representation” from April 2011, pitting discussions on the alternative vote against other news headlines… …lovely. The Alternate Vote (also known as Instant Runoff Voting/Ranked Choice Voting) is not worth fighting for because it is not a meaningful improvement over First Past the Post/Plurality. But I share your frustration at the media not covering such an important topic as they should. The Alternative Vote is only useful in a narrow circumstance—when voters choose a candidate having little support and their votes transfer first to a candidate that wins. So it buffers against minor vote splitting. But The Alternative Vote behaves poorly and erratically when an election is more competitive. An up-and-coming challenger can spoil an election when she comes in second rather than last. That’s because it changes which candidate gets eliminated and which votes transfer first. This is not good when you want a a system that deals with competitive races. This also rightfully encourages voters not to vote for their favorite when that candidate is a new challenger. And strange outcomes can occur with this system’s transfer process. About 1/5 to 1/6 of the time the system behaves so that voters can hurt their candidate by voting for them and help their candidate by voting against them. This is what those in the business call nonmonotonicity. (The much-touted runoff system is also a nonmonotonic system.) So, here are some downfalls with IRV: It’s a bit complicated as far as voting systems go (the transfers add complexity). Result tables are also complicated and difficult to easily tell who has support. Behaves erratically an unacceptable percentage of the time. Doesn’t let voters choose their favorite (despite claims otherwise). The “majority” winner proponents often claim is not accurate when looking at total votes cast. Technically, many elections don’t have a “majority winner.” Centrist candidates are disfavored. To visualize how some of this occurs, see here: Voting Visualization. But one shouldn’t give up voting reform efforts. Yes, there’s proportional representation, which is an excellent option. (US-centered case for PR). But there are also simple single-winner methods. The simplest and best of them is called Approval Voting. Simply choose as many candidates as you desire. Most votes wins. It’s just that simple and it comes with numerous advantages. Here are Approval Voting’s perks: Simple Immune to vote splitting Always vote your favorite Behaves rationally Gives more accurate support measures to new challenger candidates Rewards Centrist candidates So I encourage you to reconsider your support for The Alternative Vote and instead look at Approval Voting. More on Approval Voting here (excuse the US perspective with examples).

tooyoungforthelivingdead:

AV buzz on Twitter

A “proportional representation” from April 2011, pitting discussions on the alternative vote against other news headlines…

…lovely.

The Alternate Vote (also known as Instant Runoff Voting/Ranked Choice Voting) is not worth fighting for because it is not a meaningful improvement over First Past the Post/Plurality. But I share your frustration at the media not covering such an important topic as they should.

The Alternative Vote is only useful in a narrow circumstance—when voters choose a candidate having little support and their votes transfer first to a candidate that wins. So it buffers against minor vote splitting.

But The Alternative Vote behaves poorly and erratically when an election is more competitive. An up-and-coming challenger can spoil an election when she comes in second rather than last. That’s because it changes which candidate gets eliminated and which votes transfer first. This is not good when you want a a system that deals with competitive races. This also rightfully encourages voters not to vote for their favorite when that candidate is a new challenger.

And strange outcomes can occur with this system’s transfer process. About 1/5 to 1/6 of the time the system behaves so that voters can hurt their candidate by voting for them and help their candidate by voting against them. This is what those in the business call nonmonotonicity. (The much-touted runoff system is also a nonmonotonic system.)

So, here are some downfalls with IRV:

  • It’s a bit complicated as far as voting systems go (the transfers add complexity).
  • Result tables are also complicated and difficult to easily tell who has support.
  • Behaves erratically an unacceptable percentage of the time.
  • Doesn’t let voters choose their favorite (despite claims otherwise).
  • The “majority” winner proponents often claim is not accurate when looking at total votes cast. Technically, many elections don’t have a “majority winner.”
  • Centrist candidates are disfavored.

To visualize how some of this occurs, see here: Voting Visualization.

But one shouldn’t give up voting reform efforts. Yes, there’s proportional representation, which is an excellent option. (US-centered case for PR). But there are also simple single-winner methods. The simplest and best of them is called Approval Voting. Simply choose as many candidates as you desire. Most votes wins. It’s just that simple and it comes with numerous advantages.

Sample Approval Voting Ballot

Here are Approval Voting’s perks:

  • Simple
  • Immune to vote splitting
  • Always vote your favorite
  • Behaves rationally
  • Gives more accurate support measures to new challenger candidates
  • Rewards Centrist candidates

So I encourage you to reconsider your support for The Alternative Vote and instead look at Approval Voting. More on Approval Voting here (excuse the US perspective with examples).

4 months ago Short URL 2 notes

tooyoungforthelivingdead via tooyoungforthelivingdead