Show HN: RankedVote – SurveyMonkey but focused on ranked-choice voting • Hacker News Board

Re: Show HN: RankedVote – SurveyMonkey but focused on ranked-choice voting

#161

Post by tim-- » Thu, Oct 06, 2022, 9:14 PM UTC

wizofaus wrote: post #146

bhauer wrote: post #32

Ranking the voting systems: STAR Voting > Approval Voting > Ranked Choice Voting > Plurality ("pick only one") voting. Ranked Choice Voting is marginally better than plurality voting, but it has problems. The chief defect with Ranked Choice Voting is its non-monotonicity, whereby increasing your support for your genuine favorite can actually hurt their odds of winning. This may be what happened in Alaska [1]. STAR Vo…

As far as I can tell RCV is equivalent to what we've been using in Australia since federation to elect lower house candidates (we call it prefential voting and use it at all levels of government). I'm curious in what case "increasing your support for your genuine favorite can actually hurt their odds of winning"? I skimmed the link to the article you referenced and it appears that there were two republican candidates…

I don't believe that there is anything stopping two candidates from one party. I believe I have even seen it before, but I can't find a reference.

Re: Show HN: RankedVote – SurveyMonkey but focused on ranked-choice voting

#162

Post by NickM » Thu, Oct 06, 2022, 9:17 PM UTC

theptip wrote: post #110

NickM wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it would be a shame to spend our effort squabbling over which alternative, than giving support to the one that has the most momentum and chance of succeeding now I think the bigger shame would be to spend so much effort promoting RCV, only to have people become jaded and disillusioned with voting method reform in general when they realize RCVs many glaring problems. The biggest problem with RCV IMO is that it looks l…

I don't see a problem in the Alaska election. Perhaps I'm missing something? I posted this in a previous discussion but I'll repost because I'm keen to hear other perspectives. From https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-democrats-win-in-a... > 40 percent of voters had chosen Peltola as their first choice, 31 percent had chosen Palin and 29 percent had chosen Republican businessman Nick Begich III. Under the rules…

It's not nearly as complex as you're making it out to be. Palin was the spoiler candidate in Alaska. If Palin hadn't run, Begich would have won. Additionally, if Palin > Begich > Peltola voters had "dishonestly" voted Begich > Palin > Peltola, Begich would have won and those voters would have gotten a better outcome for themselves. By honestly ranking their preferences, they threw away their say in the outcome.

Now don't get me wrong, as a Democrat there is a part of me that is happy Peltola won, but this was clearly a pretty messed up outcome given that Begich was the condorcet winner and that Alaska is a very red state. Republicans are right to be upset about the way this election played out.

Now obviously FPTP also has the possibility of spoiler candidates, but at least in that case it's pretty easy to understand the situations in which you might be throwing away your vote. Do you think most of those Palin voters had any idea that they could have elected Begich by voting strategically? Complex, opaque voting systems like this are super bad for democracy IMO.

Re: Show HN: RankedVote – SurveyMonkey but focused on ranked-choice voting

#163

Post by wnoise » Thu, Oct 06, 2022, 9:21 PM UTC

clolege wrote: post #140

wnoise wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not at all. Score Voting as usually defined is continuous on [0,1]. Rescaling to e.g. [1,5] doesn't change this. Restricting to integers on that does; but if there are fewer than 5 candidates, equivalent rankings can still differ for total scores. It's only equivalent if you pick an integer scale [K, K+N] with N candidates, K arbitrary. That said, I prefer score, or even approval, as that's what strategic score devol…

> if there are fewer than 5 candidates, equivalent rankings can still differ for total scores I’m having a hard time following, can you give an example? I’m saying that Borda allows voters to give one candidate 5 points, one other 4 points, etc. and score would allow voters to give as many candidates 5 points, as many candidates 4 points, etc.

I'm objecting to the statement that they're equivalent if you forbid ties.

This is only true when you have as many candidates as score slots.

Re: Show HN: RankedVote – SurveyMonkey but focused on ranked-choice voting

#164

Post by tim-- » Thu, Oct 06, 2022, 9:23 PM UTC

NickM wrote: post #99

buzzy_hacker wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

STAR and Approval have different pros and cons, they are not objectively superior. I think RCV is better, in my opinion . STAR and Approval both have their own tactical voting problems. If you really like A, are meh about B, and dislike C, it’s clear you should rate A high / give A your approval and rate C low / do not give C your approval. But what about B? It has nothing to do with what you actually think about the…

This adds too much distortion to people wanting to express their sincere preferences, which they can easily do in RCV: A > B > C RCV actually literally has the exact same problem you're describing with voting strategically, it's just subtler and harder to understand. The problem is, if you rank A > B > C, then your subsequent preferences after A only matter if A gets eliminated. If A comes in second place, then your…

This is a feature, not a bug.

The point of ranking is not to have your vote redistributed many times, but rather for your #1 preference to go to your preferred candidate.

If your preferred candidate does not win, your vote gets a second chance (or more!) to get counted.

In the case your describing here, the only way that C wins, is that he gets more votes than A or B.

Re: Show HN: RankedVote – SurveyMonkey but focused on ranked-choice voting

#165

Post by uoaei » Thu, Oct 06, 2022, 9:28 PM UTC

NickM wrote: post #158

crazygringo wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> RCVs many glaring problems But all the voting methods have glaring problems, and every method is going to result in people complaining after their preferred candidate loses but would have won using another method. RCV isn't going to poison the well any more than other systems. STAR voting and approval voting, for example, open themselves up to the criticism that voting itself becomes a subjective process, which cou…

it's easy to understand and doesn't result in absurd outcomes I mean, I realize this is somewhat subjective, but "more people ranking a candidate first can cause them to lose" seems like a pretty absurd outcome to me. I'm not saying approval voting is perfect either, sure it has flaws, but at least it doesn't violate the monotonicity criterion (or a variety of other important criteria that RCV fails to satisfy).

I think this is the important point: some criteria are more important than others in that the societal reactions when one or another criterion is violated are not equal and could engender different outcomes.

If approval voting reduces to bullet voting in heated contests, I don't see that as very bad: to put it crudely, it's just the cost of doing business with that particular voting method, but there's nothing to say the results are compromised as a result. What would be way, way more troubling for the general public is being able to say "but that candidate was the clear favorite, why did the runner-up get the seat?" after the votes are counted. RCV has real, provable problems that will (and have!) create social unrest and a skepticism of the election's results when something like the monotonicity criterion is violated, not to mention the spoiler effect is not completely eliminated under RCV.

Further I believe bounded rationality can be applied here and very many people would still take the approach of filling in more than one bubble even in "strategic" settings, because people aren't perfect rational utility-maximizing agents, and anyway I don't see an acute disadvantage of using approval voting if that's the biggest gripe people seem to have about it.

In short: think of elections in a more 21st-century-Nobel-winner sense, not in a rote 20th-century-econ-professor sense.

Re: Show HN: RankedVote – SurveyMonkey but focused on ranked-choice voting

#166

Post by godelski » Thu, Oct 06, 2022, 9:36 PM UTC

NickM wrote: post #158

crazygringo wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> RCVs many glaring problems But all the voting methods have glaring problems, and every method is going to result in people complaining after their preferred candidate loses but would have won using another method. RCV isn't going to poison the well any more than other systems. STAR voting and approval voting, for example, open themselves up to the criticism that voting itself becomes a subjective process, which cou…

it's easy to understand and doesn't result in absurd outcomes I mean, I realize this is somewhat subjective, but "more people ranking a candidate first can cause them to lose" seems like a pretty absurd outcome to me. I'm not saying approval voting is perfect either, sure it has flaws, but at least it doesn't violate the monotonicity criterion (or a variety of other important criteria that RCV fails to satisfy).

Approval also doesn't violate favorite betrayer, which RCV does.

From a voter perspective, monotonicity and favorite betrayer seem to be two of the most important factors when determining "absurd outcomes." At least in my opinion.

Re: Show HN: RankedVote – SurveyMonkey but focused on ranked-choice voting

#167

Post by zestyping » Thu, Oct 06, 2022, 9:36 PM UTC

malnourish wrote: post #84

yellowapple wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be an even greater shame to be stuck with first-past-the-post while we squabble over its replacement. I vastly prefer score or approval voting over ranked-choice, but I also vastly prefer even ranked-choice over FPTP and will be voting accordingly here in Nevada. We can always adopt score or approval voting later.

Same. "Perfect is the enemy of good" as they say. I used to be vehemently opposed to RCV; I'm still against it. It's leagues better than FPTP and my hope is that it opens the door for improvements like STAR or anything that can satisfy the Condorcet criterion.

It's not clearly better than FPTP. There are arguments that it might be a little better in terms of choosing an outcome, but it definitely makes auditing a lot harder, has implementation risks due to complexity, and significantly increases ballot spoilage.

When you take all those factors together, I think it's overall worse.

Re: Show HN: RankedVote – SurveyMonkey but focused on ranked-choice voting

#168

Post by defrost » Thu, Oct 06, 2022, 9:38 PM UTC

elihu wrote: post #82

godelski wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't think normal people can understand: "Rate this candidate from 0 to 5 stars?" If so, we really need to rethink a lot of how we ask for people's opinions, because this is probably the most common way.

The problem with RCV is there's a big difference between giving an honest opinion and voting tactically. In RCV it's safe to put your first choice first if either they're an overwhelming favorite to win, or they're so weak they're sure to get eliminated right away. If it's a close three-way election, you might cause your favorite candidate to lose by ranking them first. It's hard to develop any kind of intuition arou…

> I think in the long run voters tend to learn that voting for third parties isn't safe, so two parties continue to dominate.

The empiricval evidence in countries with long term ranked voting (Australia, say) is that bicameral party systems (only Democrats or Republicans have any realistic chance) wither and die, and smaller blocs have a better chance of survival and impact | influence in the House and Senate ..

Two parties "dominate" in Australia (or rather three parties, which are effectively two - the Nat-Liberals being an Rural-Urban conservative coalition of long standing) but nowhere near the degree to which two parties dominate in the USofA; more importantly minority opinions have gravitas and can sway the major vote - none of this bipolar US Dem-Rep deadlock.

Re: Show HN: RankedVote – SurveyMonkey but focused on ranked-choice voting

#169

Post by zestyping » Thu, Oct 06, 2022, 9:41 PM UTC

buzzy_hacker wrote: post #37

bhauer wrote: post #32

Ranking the voting systems: STAR Voting > Approval Voting > Ranked Choice Voting > Plurality ("pick only one") voting. Ranked Choice Voting is marginally better than plurality voting, but it has problems. The chief defect with Ranked Choice Voting is its non-monotonicity, whereby increasing your support for your genuine favorite can actually hurt their odds of winning. This may be what happened in Alaska [1]. STAR Vo…

STAR and Approval have different pros and cons, they are not objectively superior. I think RCV is better, in my opinion . STAR and Approval both have their own tactical voting problems. If you really like A, are meh about B, and dislike C, it’s clear you should rate A high / give A your approval and rate C low / do not give C your approval. But what about B? It has nothing to do with what you actually think about the…

You have to consider factors beyond just the decision algorithm — elections must be inclusive, fair, and accurate as well. RCV makes auditing a lot harder due to centralization, the complexity means there is more room for software problems and process problems, and the spoiled ballot rate increases, especially among people who are less privileged. When you look at the whole picture, RCV is probably a net negative.

Approval doesn't have these problems; it's a clear win.

Re: Show HN: RankedVote – SurveyMonkey but focused on ranked-choice voting

#170

Post by obelos » Thu, Oct 06, 2022, 9:49 PM UTC

garaetjjte wrote: post #145

bhauer wrote: post #32

Ranking the voting systems: STAR Voting > Approval Voting > Ranked Choice Voting > Plurality ("pick only one") voting. Ranked Choice Voting is marginally better than plurality voting, but it has problems. The chief defect with Ranked Choice Voting is its non-monotonicity, whereby increasing your support for your genuine favorite can actually hurt their odds of winning. This may be what happened in Alaska [1]. STAR Vo…

I'm not convinced that additional complexity of STAR is worth it compared to extremely simple score voting.

As a practical consideration, the runoff in STAR does offer a legal advantage in some districts where a runoff is legally mandated.