Live data from Hacker News

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

rankedvote.co

211–220 of 326 posts

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

#211
post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Score voting (also known as range voting) is not a very good system to use in a real election because there's a huge risk that, on a scale of 1 to 10, the extremists will all give their candidate a score of 10 and everyone else 1, whereas the moderates will score their candidates, say, 7 or 8 and score the ones they don't like 3 or 4. The extremists could thus prevail despite being significantly outnumbered by modera…

>whereas the moderates will score their candidates, say, 7 or 8 and score the ones they don't like 3 or 4

Indeed, you should use whole available range. But there's still incentive to differentiate more than max/min, because otherwise you don't get any influence to choose between other candidates. For example with candidates: A-best, B-lesser evil, C-evil; instead of scoring max/0/0 it would be more reasonable to vote max/something/0. Voting system cannot give you result reflecting your preferences if you don't provide them!

Maybe another way to look at this: there's only so much influence single ballot has, and you can spend it to either push A above B/C, or A/B above C. It's a tradeoff, but score voting allows you to dial in the ratio you want. Falling back to approval is strictly less expressive.

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

#212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What's the added complexity of STAR? STAR is phase 1: sort(sum(candidates))[:2] (almost identical to score/approval/FPTP. We'd just take argmax instead of top two) and phase 2: eliminate other candidates, argmax(sum(candidates)) (identical to score/approval/FPTP). On the other hand RCV is a multi-round system with a while loop. In practice it almost never has fewer than 2 rounds (requires overwhelming majority, which…

I mean the added complexity of STAR compared to score. It irks me that it basically adds second election using different system, that happens to sneakily reuse the same ballot.

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

#213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just want to make clear for others: this "ranking" is just bhauer's opinion. Since some people here might interpret it as being presented as objective fact or some consensus opinion. There are a lot of pros/cons to all of the richer voting systems, usually categorized as approval voting, ranked voting, and score voting, in terms of increasing information. But there is absolutely no consensus that approval or score…

Just to be clear for others: those who reject Ranked Choice Voting do so because it does not support 3rd party candidates - it encourages strategic voting (due to its non-monotonicity) that locks in to 2-parties again. It thus completely fails to achieve the most important part of reform, and falls below ALL other systems previously mentioned here (including also Condorcet or Proportional Representation systems, wher…

> we are dumbfounded by those who prefer Ranked Choice Voting.

Hello, I prefer RCV. Reasons:

- it is a stepping stone to proportional representation (achieved by adopting both RCV and multi-member districts), which is much more important than which single-winner voting system is chosen

- you need to be a fellow voting systems nerd to understand when you may want to vote tactically in RCV, so approximately zero people will vote insincerely

- it is really obvious that voting tactically is an option in approval voting, and so lots of people will vote insincerely and this will undermine the confidence in the voting system

- while single-winner RCV may not result in many more third-party winners (we need multi-winner RCV, i.e. proportional representation for that), it will change the kinds of winners for the two dominant parties, which is just as important. This point is always under appreciated.

- RCV has much more momentum behind it

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

#214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What is most interesting to me is the number of exhausted votes. Did those folks not pick a second candidate because they did not want to support either choice as a second, or did they not know how the voting system worked? It sounds like the real problem here is education, which will be a challenge with any different voting system, and some a lot more so. It will probably be better the next time around.

‘Sarah Palin Instructed Supporters Not to Rank Candidates’

https://news.yahoo.com/sarah-palin-instructed-supporters-not...

Apparently some were instructed not to make a second choice.

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

#215
post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

> By honestly ranking their preferences, they threw away their say in the outcome. When Begich came out as the loser, every one of the votes he got went to the voter's #2 choice which was either Palin or Peltola (and a surprising 29% of Begich voters had Peltola as their #2 choice!) The only people who "threw away their say in the outcome" are the ones who didn't rank their preferences. They basically opted out of ha…

> it happens only when you don't specify who your vote should go to if your first pick doesn't have enough supporters

And your second pick, and your third pick... right?

A big reason for electoral reform is to encourage a wider range of candidates to run, which means voters may be faced with having to come up with a total ordering across a dozen different options.

You seem to be saying that voters who aren't informed enough about their relative preferences for all available candidates, deserve to have their votes thrown away, or at least that voters who can remember an ordering for a list of a dozen names should be given more electoral power than their fellow citizens who cannot manage that feat.

That's maybe not the biggest distortion and potential unfairness in the US right now (with the electoral college and partisan gerrymandering being two aspects that courts openly accept, not to mention other more insidious methods of disenfranchisement) but I think that reform advocates need to be careful not to support the equivalent of "literacy" tests, which have a disturbing past.

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

#216
post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

Do we know for a fact the breakdown of 2nd choices on ballots where Palin was the first choice? If not, you are only speculating. It seems possible that Palin lost due to voters incorrectly expressing their preferences by not putting a 2nd choice. If that is a routine thing, then it is indeed a problem with ranked choice voting in the real world, but it is NOT a structural flaw as you are claiming.

Yes, the cast vote record has been released, and Begich wins the head to head vs both Palin and Peltota. [1] is a nice writeup on the election (highly recommend the What's Interesting header if you don't have time for the whole thing) and [2] is a link to the released ballot data.

[1] https://electionscience.org/commentary-analysis/rcv-fools-pa...

[2] https://www.elections.alaska.gov/election-results/e/?id=22pr...

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

#217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every voting system has some flaws (see: Arrow's impossibility theorem), and Instant Runoff Voting definitely saw its worst-case scenario rear its ugly head in Alaska: A Condorcet winner existed (Nick Begich), he lost, and voters whose first choice was Plain and second choice was Begich could theoretically, retrospectivally, all changed their first votes from Palin to Begich to have him win rather than Mary Peltola.…

>see: Arrow's impossibility theorem Arrow's theorem only applies to ranked systems. That said, cardinal systems are still susceptible to strategic voting (Gibbard's theorem)

Thank you for pointing out how overused "Arrow's impossibility theorem" is as an argument against all voting systems (and therefore often as an argument against all reforms to the current near-worst possible voting system).

I would go further and be somewhat dismissive even of "Gibbard's theorem", since it only shows that an insincere vote can strategically produce a better outcome for a voter if they can identify what that that vote should be, and if they are one of the voters for whom such a strategy is available.

So it doesn't guarantee (as far as I'm aware) that even a single voter (under every possible cardinal voting system) will necessarily have enough information before or during the election to confidently pick some specific insincere vote that will increase their chances of getting the outcome they want.

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

#218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if fixing the "strong case" spoiler actually is NOT what some "spoiler voters" would want, simply BECAUSE they want to spoil for the other party to try to move that party toward where they want it to be.

Probably. But I don't think the public really wants their voting systems to be highly vulnerable to strategic voting. That does just give elites an edge and ends up with less equitable representation. (strategies exist for ALL voting systems. But not all strategies are equally as bad)

> not all strategies are equally as bad

That's an important point. Also, just because a strategy exists in theory, doesn't mean that in practice any voter can confidently find that strategy (since they lack perfect information about how all the other voters intend to vote).

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

#219
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 just want to make clear for others: this "ranking" is just bhauer's opinion. Since some people here might interpret it as being presented as objective fact or some consensus opinion. There are a lot of pros/cons to all of the richer voting systems, usually categorized as approval voting, ranked voting, and score voting, in terms of increasing information. But there is absolutely no consensus that approval or score…

No it's not just his opinion, there are objective metrics like voter satisfaction efficiency that back it up.

https://www.electionscience.org/library/approval-voting-vers...

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

#220
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…

> 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…

The normalization error, what you are calling subjectivity, is already accounted for in VSE calculations.

Score voting methods like star voting and approval voting are objectively superior.

https://electionscience.github.io/vse-sim/VSEbasic/

Post reply on HN