Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What is ranked-choice voting and why is New York using it?

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 476 posts

Re: What is ranked-choice voting and why is New York using it?

#321

Post by ClayShentrup »

adjkant wrote: post #184
lostdog wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So many plugs for approval voting in these threads, but it just seems so terrible for what people really want to express. For example, in 2016, plenty of people wanted Sanders more than Clinton. Who are they supposed to "approve?" Many of them would note their preference by just approving Sanders and not Clinton, which is the opposite of what a voting system is supposed to help achieve.

Exactly. What about if it was Sanders, Clinton, Kasich, and Trump? As a far left voter, do I have to approve Kasich if I really don't want Trump to win? In RCV, it's simple: Sanders, Clinton, maybe Kasich to ensure Trump doesn't win. There are 100% problems in IRV that Clinton or Kasich may be the first elimination there, meaning moderates can get screwed even with preference, but it's still way better than Approval…

Approval voting is superior to IRV in every way we can measure.

https://electionscience.org/library/approval-voting-versus-i...

Particularly noteworthy is their relative performance in computer simulations of accuracy against tactical voting.

https://www.rangevoting.org/BayRegFig

Re: What is ranked-choice voting and why is New York using it?

#322

Post by pksebben »

justinpombrio wrote: post #298
godelski wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Arrow’s impossibility theorem First off, Arrow's doesn't apply to all systems. You'll need to look into both Gibbard's and Gibbard-Satterthwaite's theorems. Second off, just because you can't find a global optimization in a highly dimensional space doesn't mean there aren't local optimizations along criteria we care more about. Appealing to Arrow's is a cop-out. > Approval voting I think is much too tactical and, s…

For anyone like me who hadn't heard of Gibbard's theorem, it's actually even simpler (and more depressing) than Arrow's theorem. To quote Wikipedia: For any deterministic process of collective decision, at least one of the following three properties must hold: 1. The process is dictatorial, i.e. there exists a distinguished agent who can impose the outcome; 2. The process limits the possible outcomes to two options o…

according to Wikipedia:

>Gibbard's theorem states that a deterministic process of collective decision cannot be straightforward, except possibly in two cases: if there is a distinguished agent who has a dictatorial power, or if the process limits the outcome to two possible options only.

.. it also mentions that gibbard's is specifically about irv.

All that aside, I can't understand the idea that we only get to change things once. My understanding of history is at odds with the concept.

Re: What is ranked-choice voting and why is New York using it?

#323

Post by wslack »

throw5away wrote: post #114
xvedejas wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would you say to someone like me who feels that IRV is perhaps the worst possible alternative voting system to advocate for? It feels like someone at some stage must be very dishonest, or otherwise dangerously uninformed, to think that IRV is worth advocating for over alternatives like approval voting, range voting, or any Condorcet voting system. I'm very worried that most places will have the political will to…

Honestly IRV is _even worse than plurality_. It doesn't solve the problems it sets out to solve (it entrenches two-party domination [1]), it has ridiculous monotonicity violations [2], all for a lot more complication in counting the votes (you can't distribute the counting well without transmitting the contents of all of the ballots) and possibly wrecking the secret ballot (you can encode and buy specific down-ballot…

> you can't distribute the counting well without transmitting the contents of all of the ballots

There are only so many combinations of rankings that are possible. It shouldn't be hard to encode each of those possible orders and transmit them as a whole.

Re: What is ranked-choice voting and why is New York using it?

#324

Post by asteroidbelt »

elihu wrote: post #248
_AzMoo wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is Instant Runoff Voting the worst possible voting method?

One of it's big downsides is that you can, in some cases, cause a candidate to lose by ranking them too highly. In voting-theory terminology, it fails the monotonicity criterion. In at least that one respect it's worse than first-past-the-post. (I mean, imagine if people could say "Gore would have won in 2000 if only a few less people had voted for him". That sounds nonsensical, but that's how IRV works sometimes.) W…

> Approval voting is simpler than IRV and (as far as I know) it isn't worse than FPTP in any way

FPTP might be better than approval voting, because approval voting favors weak moderate candidates with no agenda.

With FPTP the people alternate lefts and rights and the system develops. With moderate candidates the system may stop progressing: no reforms, no bugfixes.

Re: What is ranked-choice voting and why is New York using it?

#325

Post by thaumasiotes »

xdennis wrote: post #146
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this US, you would rarely need to do any additional research. There are almost always only 2 choices - the Democratic candidate and the Republican candidate. Anyone voting for another candidate is simply saying that's who they /REALLY/ wish would win, but most people aren't willing to throw their vote in the garbage to virtue signal. That 3rd party candidate almost never has a chance at winning. Neither does the a…

The USA is a two-party state because of the voting system. If people could confidently vote for another party there wouldn't be just two parties. It's even reflected in the language, like how people task about being "bi-partizan" instead of "non-partizan".

> The USA is a two-party state because of the voting system.

There's much more to it than that. The two-party system is codified into many laws. A lot of effort goes into maintaining it; the voting system isn't up to that job.

Re: What is ranked-choice voting and why is New York using it?

#326

Post by wslack »

coryrc wrote: post #159
wslack wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's true - but approaches that identify those best compromises get mathematically more and more complex as the system gains fidelity. We shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If a place wants to implement another voting system, I'd be interested to see how it plays out, and if the voters see the winner with legitimacy. IRV is relatively simple and candidates in NY are still attacking it because of th…

You don't get a lot of chances to change the voting system. Tacoma, WA changed to IRV for a while, but it didn't make any difference in who got elected, then they threw it out a few years later. Good luck getting a better system in place now.

Did they eliminate the primary process? The real value of IRV (IMO) is when you can have a Sanders and a Clinton (or a Trump and a Rubio) both on a general election ballot.

Re: What is ranked-choice voting and why is New York using it?

#327

Post by goatse-4-u »

ehmmmmmmmm wrote: post #302
thepete2 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I very much want dumb people to have representation.

No, you don't want dumb people to have representation, because idiots will spread misinformation (everything from climate change being fake to masks being unnecessary) and adopt corrupt practices to garner their votes. Smart people are less vulnerable to misinformation. You want people who believe science, have a sense of foresight for several years, understand international politics, and how resources and economics…

You're the problem. Go fuck yourself you repulsive elitist prick:

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  
    *                                               *
    * /     \             \            /    \       *
    *|       |             \          |      |      *
    *|       `.             |         |       :     *
    *`        |             |        \|       |     *
    * \       | /       /  \\\   ____ \\       :    *
    *  \      \/   ___~~          ~____| \     |    *
    *   \      \__~                    ~__\    |    *
    *    \_     \        _.______  .______\|   |    *
    *      \     \______// _ ___ _ (_(__>  \   |    *
    *       \   .  C ___)  ______ (_(____>  |  /    *
    *       /\ |   C ____)/      \ (_____>  |_/     *
    *      / /\|   C_____)       |  (___>   /  \    *
    *     |   (   _C_____)\______/  // _/ /     \   *
    *     |    \  |__   \\_________// (__/       |  *
    *    | \    \____)   `____  ___'             |  *
    *    |  \_          ___\       /_          _/ | *
    *   |              /    |     |  \            | *
    *   |             |    /       \  \           | *
    *   |          / /    |         |  \           |*
    *   |         / /      \__/\___/    |          |*
    *  |           /        |    |       |         |*
    *  |          |         |    |       |         |*
    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Re: What is ranked-choice voting and why is New York using it?

#328

Post by justinpombrio »

pksebben wrote: post #322
justinpombrio wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For anyone like me who hadn't heard of Gibbard's theorem, it's actually even simpler (and more depressing) than Arrow's theorem. To quote Wikipedia: For any deterministic process of collective decision, at least one of the following three properties must hold: 1. The process is dictatorial, i.e. there exists a distinguished agent who can impose the outcome; 2. The process limits the possible outcomes to two options o…

according to Wikipedia: >Gibbard's theorem states that a deterministic process of collective decision cannot be straightforward, except possibly in two cases: if there is a distinguished agent who has a dictatorial power, or if the process limits the outcome to two possible options only. .. it also mentions that gibbard's is specifically about irv. All that aside, I can't understand the idea that we only get to chang…

> .. it also mentions that gibbard's is specifically about irv.

No, Gibbard's is not limited to any particular voting method. I think you're misreading the next paragraph (and also confusing IRV, which is a particular method, with ranked choice, which is a whole category of methods). Note the distinction between Gibbard and Gibbard-Satterthwaite:

> A corollary of this theorem is Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem about voting rules. The main difference between the two is that Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem is limited to ranked (ordinal) voting rules: a voter's action consists in giving a preference ranking over the available options. Gibbard's theorem is more general and considers processes of collective decision that may not be ordinal: for example, voting systems where voters assign grades to candidates.

Re: What is ranked-choice voting and why is New York using it?

#329

Post by tptacek »

CameronNemo wrote: post #283
gwright wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But if you are electing parties (like the US House) I'm not sure why you are phrasing it this way. Voters don't pick a party for their House representative, they pick a candidate. Each House district election is independent of all the others.

Voters pick a candidate knowing that the candidate will have to play within a two party legislature. Third party legislators are shunned. Their bills get no traction, and they get no committee assignments. If they are seriously divergent, the House could easily have them removed.

Further evidence for this exists in the demise of ticket splitting: if you vote R at the top of the ticket, you're very likely to vote R the rest of the way down the ticket, regardless of who the downballot R's are. It wasn't always this way, but has been for some time.

Re: What is ranked-choice voting and why is New York using it?

#330

Post by godelski »

munk-a wrote: post #282
godelski wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but the Australian experience is instructive. No? It is instructive of how parliaments work. IRV doesn't explain the multi-party house and senate given that every other country with a parliament also has a similar distribution. If you're only looking at Australia vs America you're doing the wrong analysis (it is far too limited). Australia vs France just outright disproves your supposition (they use a 2 round syste…

I disagree about the consistent distribution in parliaments. I do think that parliamentary governance is, overall, just a better way to elect heads of state - but up here in Canada we have a parliament and, while the NDP certainly does hold some sway, we're drifting toward a two party system. Surprisingly, it seems most likely that the CPC might collapse and get absorbed into the LPC which then provides conservative…

> but up here in Canada we have a parliament and we're drifting toward a two party system

Actually this is kinda my point:

Canada: Liberal + Conservative = 81.1% (90.5% with Bloc, 97.6% w/ NDP, )

Australia: Liberal + Labor = 84.8% (95.4% with National)

Germany: CDU + SPD = 56% (68% w/ AfD, 79.7% w/FDP, 89.4% w/ Left)

France: REM + LR = 71.8% (79.9% w/ MoDem, 85.4% w/ UAI, 90.8% w/SOC)

I can continue if needed...

These 4 countries have 4 different voting systems but what they have in common is a parliament where seats are assigned proportionately to votes (there's no winner take all). Canada and Australia seem to be the closest to America than the others. (Note that I used house numbers for all because they have larger sample sizes so there's a lower bias in distributions)

So it is pretty clear that IRV is ''not,, the defining feature here that causes multi-party systems, nor weaker coalitions. Though we'd have to get more into game theory about coalitions to talk more accurately and I want to stress that while I believe voting methods is a strong tool to prevent these things it isn't the only necessary tool (it's just the biggest step forward we can make given the current US system).

> (I purposefully avoided the common party names since they have connotations how Americans view politics that are extremely inaccurate).

I think this is fair. As I've argued elsewhere America's two party system is closer to a two coalition system. Which actually Australia is a better example of two coalition domination, IMO, than Canada (though I would say a close runner up).

Post reply on HN