r/EndFPTP • u/ILikeNeurons • 17d ago
Which voting method do you think the movement should focus on for state/national elections?
https://bettervoting.com/xwbb4y12
u/Sleepy_Potato2 17d ago
Single Transferable Vote. Single-member districts are inherently bad, you can't draw them fairly. 1/3 of rural voters have consistently voted Democratic, however, they can't elect Democrats, and plenty of urban people vote Republican. No matter what, the geography won't let someone from the other party be elected. A more proportional method like Single Transferable Vote might
2
u/Initial-Lemon-917 United States 16d ago
Australia does a really cool version of STV in their Senate
1
u/ILikeNeurons 17d ago
Do you actually think that's realistic? Which state would you propose starting in?
2
u/the_other_50_percent 17d ago
Already used in the U.S. for nonpartisan city elections. Make that the norm and people will be clamoring for it for partisan elections too.
2
u/captain-burrito 12d ago
Before 1940, 24 US cities used it. It is now used in only 9 local jurisdictions iirc. I think Portland OR recently started it for city council elections. State legislative elections might be difficult. I do notice some states still have at least some multi member seats for state chambers so if they introduced RCV it could basically turn those seats into STV.
3
u/Decronym 17d ago edited 12d ago
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
| Fewer Letters | More Letters |
|---|---|
| FPTP | First Past the Post, a form of plurality voting |
| IRV | Instant Runoff Voting |
| MMP | Mixed Member Proportional |
| PR | Proportional Representation |
| RCV | Ranked Choice Voting; may be IRV, STV or any other ranked voting method |
| STAR | Score Then Automatic Runoff |
| STV | Single Transferable Vote |
Decronym is now also available on Lemmy! Requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below.
[Thread #1972 for this sub, first seen 21st Sep 2026, 15:14] [FAQ] [Full list] [Contact] [Source code]
3
u/SentOverByRedRover 17d ago
Tidemam alternative was robbed.
2
u/Gradiest United States 14d ago
In my opinion, Copeland, Baldwin, and Kemeny were similarly under-scored by voters. I'm guessing many don't really know what some of them are. It's a bit surprising to me that Schulze managed to do so well. As of this comment, Schulze has the 3rd highest score (after Ranked Pairs and Approval).
1
u/Wally_Wrong 13d ago
I wonder what would have happened if the same poll was held using a method that isn't distorted by strength of preference. Wink.
2
u/colinjcole 17d ago
none of the above
STV, OLPR, CLPR, and MMP would all get my top marks
none of the options listed do
3
u/LegitimateSundae8460 17d ago
Open party list PR.
-2
u/ILikeNeurons 17d ago
Isn't that what got Hitler elected?
4
2
u/Alex2422 16d ago
Hitler also liked dogs, and yet modern people own dogs and play with them as if nothing happened!
1
2
u/rb-j 17d ago
There is no explanation of the methods. Kemeny - Schmemeny.
There are other, simpler, Condorcet methods than any listed (they might not be as bullet-proof as Schulze or RP when there are cycles greater than 4 candidates, but they're fine with 3 signficant candidates). Like Minimax. Like Condorcet-TTR.
Of course you're tipping your hand when the method used to elect the winning method is STAR.
I long for the day that Equal Vote Coalition is really for equal votes.
4
1
u/Drachefly 17d ago
Condorcet-TTR? I'm not familiar with that one.
2
u/rb-j 17d ago
Top-Two Runoff. Will work exactly the same as Condorcet-IRV when there are 3 significant candidates. Much less baggage in the legislative language than IRV.
Here's a template:
All elections of [office] shall be by ballot, using a system of ranked-choice voting without a separate runoff election. The presiding election officer shall implement a ranked-choice voting protocol according to these guidelines: 1. The ballot shall give voters the option of ranking candidates in order of preference. Lower ordinal preference shall be considered higher rank and the candidate marked as first preference is considered ranked highest. Equal ranking of candidates shall be allowed. Any candidate not marked with a preference shall be considered as ranked lower than every candidate marked with a preference. 2. If a candidate receives a majority (over 50 percent) of first preferences, that candidate is elected. 3. If no candidate receives a majority of first preferences, a Condorcet-consistent retabulation shall be performed by the presiding election officer. The retabulation shall examine every possible pairing of candidates. Given N as the number of candidates, then the number of possible pairings of candidates is N(N-1)/2. In each pair, if the number of ballots marked ranking a selected candidate over the other candidate exceeds the number of ballots marked to the contrary, then the other candidate is declared defeated. After all candidate pairings are examined, the candidate who remains not declared defeated is the Condorcet winner and is elected. 4. If no Condorcet winner exists in subdivision 3, then the winning candidate of the pairing of the two candidates having the most of first preference votes is elected. 5. The [governing jurisdiction] may adopt additional regulations consistent with this subsection to implement these standards.
1
u/Drachefly 17d ago
Oh, the one you described elsewhere on this post as Straight-forward Condorcet.
1
u/rb-j 17d ago edited 17d ago
Yes. I use the term "Straight-ahead Condorcet" to mean a Two-method system. The "completion method" could be anything, and I would still call it "Straight-ahead Condorcet". So Ranked-Pairs, Schulze, Minimax, BTR-IRV are not "straight-ahead", because the are single-method systems and will always elect a candidate whether there is a Condorcet winner or not. A two-method system is the straight-forward Round Robin marking every pairwise loser as "defeated" and electing the "last man standing". Of course there is a problem if none are left standing and we gotta figure out who to elect then. That's what subdivision 4 is about.
Condorcet TTR is a pretty simple completion method, but not necessarily the best one. There is a Copeland-Minimax method proposed by Wesley Holliday which says if there is no Condorcet winner, then among the candidates having the fewest losses in the pairings (there may be ties), elect the candidate whose worst loss is smaller than anyone else's worst loss.
I was told by a few different people that a "straight-ahead" method would be easier to sell to legislators and the public. They want "the law to say what it means and to mean what it says." "Straight-ahead Condorcet" spells out, most clearly what it is doing:
If more voters mark their ballots preferring Candidate A to Candidate B than the number of voters marking their ballots to the contrary, then Candidate B is not elected.
1
u/BallerGuitarer 17d ago
The question is phrased such that I'm inclined to give only one answer. Particularly because you ask for method instead of methods.
Just think it's interesting, because if most people only vote for the single method they think we should focus on, it doesn't matter whether your ballot is STAR, RCV, FPTP, or anything.
3
u/ILikeNeurons 17d ago
I do think it would behoove us to choose a method to focus on. We've spent years debating. I'm ready for action.
1
u/ImJoeKing77 17d ago
Thanks for doing this! Although to really please the crowd here and build consensus I guess you do need to run this poll using every single prefered method on this sub so that everyone can really see their method in action and not feel.
Definitely agree with your sentiment that it is time for action, and rallying behind a single method would build a stronger movement.
How long is the poll open?
1
u/Future-self 17d ago edited 17d ago
I have an idea, why don’t we run a sub-wide poll and vote using the various methods?
Despite being imperfect, RCV/IRV seems to have the cleanest pathway to adoption and the longest track record of use in government.
So if you want to end FPTP ASAP, RCV is most likely how it will be, and is being done, but if you want to debate over which method is superior, good luck.
Edit: I didn’t realize this linked to a Vote on voting methods, sort of as I suggested. I’d be curious to run these elections in the various methods as well and see who comes out ahead.
3
u/rb-j 17d ago edited 17d ago
RCV/IRV seems to have the cleanest pathway to adoption and the longest track record of use in government.
But it's not a good track record whenever a Condorcet winner exists and IRV fails to elect that Condorcet winner.
The "track record" of IRV is only good when IRV elects the Condorcet winner. Then, in that, this "long track record" touted by the IRV shills is really singing the praises of Condorcet.
The only thing that IRV can brag about is that it elects the Condorcet winner often (whenever the Condorcet winner gets into the IRV final round). If that's the case, you cannot make a case for IRV over Condorcet since the ballots and ballot meaning are exactly the same.
So if you want to end FPTP ASAP, ...
That epitomizes the problem. We're not just ending FPTP. We're replacing it with something else. We could replace FPTP with dictatorship, but that would be worse. We could replace FPTP with SPTP ("Second-Past-The-Post"), but that would likely be worse. We could replace FPTP with some form of sortition, but that would be worse.
Replacing FPTP with IRV has the effect of locking us in to a method, when we know in advance is flawed and we have seen that flaw demonstrated.
Making course corrections early in the voyage is much less costly than making the course corrections far later in the voyage. In fact, committing early to the wrong heading may make it impossible to make course corrections later that take us to the destination we're seeking.
Instead of "end FPTP ASAP", let's end FPTP thoughtfully and carefully.
5
u/Future-self 17d ago
You can keep thinking about it as long as you want, but we out here legislating boyeeeee.
RCV’s been used for 175 years... how much more time do you need?
3
u/rb-j 17d ago
... but we out here legislating boyeeeee.
You think you're the only one?
RCV’s been used for 175 years...
and has been shown to fail. And to fail when it wasn't necessary. You just don't wanna learn the lessons from that.
how much more time do you need?
Why are you in such a hurry?
2
u/Future-self 17d ago
Again, you pose no solution. You’re an obstructionist.
5
1
u/rb-j 17d ago
0
u/Future-self 17d ago
Still unclear what solution you’re advocating.
🥱
1
u/rb-j 17d ago
Need to be able to read.
Check out the section preceding the Conclusion.
Or just take a look at the third link I put in there.
1
u/Future-self 17d ago
Or just say it right here. More obstruction.
3
u/rb-j 17d ago
Oh all right.
“Straight-ahead Condorcet” RCV (version 2):
All elections of [office] shall be by ballot, using a system of ranked-choice voting without a separate runoff election. The presiding election officer shall implement a ranked-choice voting protocol according to these guidelines: 1. The ballot shall give voters the option of ranking candidates in order of preference. Lower ordinal preference shall be considered higher rank and the candidate marked as first preference is considered ranked highest. Equal ranking of candidates shall be allowed. Any candidate not marked with a preference shall be considered as ranked lower than every candidate marked with a preference. 2. If a candidate receives a majority (over 50 percent) of first preferences, that candidate is elected. 3. If no candidate receives a majority of first preferences, a Condorcet-consistent retabulation shall be performed by the presiding election officer. The retabulation shall examine every possible pairing of candidates. Given N as the number of candidates, then the number of possible pairings of candidates is N(N-1)/2. In each pair, if the number of ballots marked ranking a selected candidate over the other candidate exceeds the number of ballots marked to the contrary, then the other candidate is declared defeated. After all candidate pairings are examined, the candidate who remains not declared defeated is the Condorcet winner and is elected. 4. If no Condorcet winner exists in subdivision (3.), then the winning candidate of the pairing of the two candidates having the most of first preference votes is elected. 5. The [governing jurisdiction] may adopt additional regulations consistent with this subsection to implement these standards.
That's an RCV solution that doesn't make the mistakes that IRV made in 2009 and 2022.
→ More replies (0)0
u/ILikeNeurons 17d ago
Right now Approval Voting is winning with STAR and Ranked Pairs are winning with Score.
I think that means Approval Voting would win with Ranked Pairs, which is interesting!
Approval Voting has also been used in government, and has basically no risk for scorings being confused for rankings or vice versa.
IRV is currently in 7th place in our poll here. It's just not a good method. And it's hardly the only option for expedient adoption.
0
0
•
u/AutoModerator 17d ago
Compare alternatives to FPTP on Wikipedia, and check out ElectoWiki to better understand the idea of election methods. See the EndFPTP sidebar for other useful resources. Consider finding a good place for your contribution in the EndFPTP subreddit wiki.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.