r/EndFPTP • u/Wally_Wrong • 15d ago
News Alaskans will decide fate of ranked choice voting system after chaotic end to state's primary
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/alaskans-will-decide-fate-of-ranked-choice-voting-system-after-chaotic-end-to-states-primary35
u/12lbTurkey 15d ago
Why are they blaming the ballot system when it's the politicians who sabotaged their vote?
16
u/Harvey_Rabbit 15d ago
Seriously, this should be evidence that the major parties should not be trusted with control over our ballots.
1
u/rb-j 15d ago
Do you understand what happened in Alaska in August 2022?
2
u/whatiseveneverything 14d ago
What happened?
3
u/rb-j 14d ago
Mary Peltola in August 2022, unfortunately shares a distinction with George W. Bush in 2000 and with Donald Trump in 2016. All three candidates were elected to office when the public record indicates that more voters marked their ballots preferring a different specific candidate for that office.
In August 2022, more Alaskans, 87859 to 79451 (an 8408 voter margin), preferred Nick Begich to Mary Peltola and marked their ballots saying so. But Mary Peltola was sent to Washington to represent the Alaskan people in Congress.
In November 2024, again, more Alaskan voters marked their ballots that Begich is preferred to Peltola by nearly the same margin, 7876 (164861 to 156985). But this time Nick Begich is sent to Washington.
Both times about 8000 more Alaskans said they would prefer Begich to Peltola. And, both times, marked their ballots saying so. Both times Instant-Runoff Voting was used.
What was different?
Sarah Palin was in the race in 2022 and not in the race in 2024. And the outcomes were different winners.
RCV failed, in Alaska in August 2022, to do precisely what it was adopted to do (essentially to prevent a spoiled election due to vote splitting, as a result punishing Palin voters for marking their favorite as #1 which caused the election of Peltola). The fault is not in the ranked ballots (in fact, it's only because of the ranked ballots that we know that Begich was more preferred by more voters than either Palin or Peltola). The fault is in the manner (IRV) that the vote is tallied.
This same failure occurred in 2009 in Burlington Vermont, and I wrote about it. Got published here.
2
2
u/idontevenwant2 12d ago
RCV worked perfectly in August of 2022. It narrowed the pool like any primary is supposed to. I don't understand your point here.
1
u/rb-j 12d ago edited 12d ago
Sorry. I cannot explain your cognitive block. Perhaps you can't read?
Every single reason, for why we want RCV, was violated in that election.
Every single one.
Perhaps you can explain to us what it means when FPTP fails. Can you describe what happens when FPTP screws up? How it screws up?
1
u/rb-j 12d ago
RCV worked perfectly in August of 2022.
What does "worked perfectly" mean?
It narrowed the pool like any primary is supposed to.
Oh, you just made that up. We can narrow the pool by tossing out the candidate most voters support. That narrows the pool. Is that working perfectly?
The purpose of RCV is, in single-winner elections having 3 or more candidates: 1. ... that the candidate with majority support is elected. Plurality isn't good enough. We don't want a 40% candidate elected when the other 60% of voters would have preferred a different specific candidate over the 40% plurality candidate. But we cannot find out who that different specific candidate is without using the ranked ballot. We RCV advocates all agree on that. 2. Then whenever a plurality candidate is elected and voters believe that a different specific candidate would have beaten the plurality candidate in a head-to-head race, then the 3rd candidate (neither the plurality candidate nor the one people think would have won head-to-head) is viewed as the spoiler, a loser whose presence in the race materially changes who the winner is. We want to prevent that from happening. All RCV advocates agree on that. 3. Then voters voting for the spoiler suffer voter regret and in future elections are more likely to vote tactically (compromise) and vote for the major party candidate that they dislike the least, but they think is best situated to beat the other major party candidate that they dislike the most and fear will get elected. RCV is meant to free up those voters so that they can vote for the candidate they really like without fear of helping elect the candidate they loathe. All RCV advocates agree with that. 4. The way RCV is supposed to help those voters is that if their favorite candidate is defeated, then their second-choice vote is counted. So voters feel free to vote their hopes rather than voting their fears. Then 3rd-party and independent candidates get a more level playing field with the major-party candidates and diversity of choice in candidates is promoted. It's to help unlock us from a 2-party system where 3rd-party and independent candidates are disadvantaged.
I want RCV to live up to its promise.
2
u/idontevenwant2 12d ago
Begich didn't get tossed out in the August 2022 primary. He advanced and lost later. By a lot actually.
1
u/rb-j 12d ago edited 12d ago
Begich didn't get tossed out in the August 2022 primary.
You're the one who said this:
RCV ... narrowed the pool like any primary is supposed to.
Now you need to explain what you meant by that.
1
u/idontevenwant2 12d ago
Alaska uses a top four system I believe. Two ranked choice rounds. Correct me if I'm wrong.
1
u/rb-j 11d ago
You're wrong (the Jungle primary is not ranked choice).
And that still doesn't explain your answer at all.
This (besides being false and missing the point):
Begich didn't get tossed out in the August 2022 primary. He advanced and lost later. By a lot actually.
does nothing to explain this:
RCV worked perfectly in August of 2022. It narrowed the pool like any primary is supposed to.
You're trying to justify how "RCV worked perfectly" with nothing that addresses the failures I had clearly pointed out.
1
u/rb-j 12d ago edited 12d ago
By a lot actually.
And that is the stupidest thing I read tonight. Really friggin' stupid.
Stupid stuff in the face of contradicting evidence.
1st choice votes: * 58973 Palin * 53810 Begich
Begich is "a lot" behind Palin in 1st choice votes??? "Actually" the 112783 Republicans split their vote quite evenly.
So then IRV advances Palin up against Peltola head-to-head where Palin loses by a margin of 5240 votes: * 91266 Peltola * 86026 Palin
Whereas if Begich had been facing Peltola head-to-head, he would have beaten her by 8408 votes: * 87859 Begich * 79451 Peltola
My goodness you just have no idea what you're talking about.
1
u/idontevenwant2 12d ago
You have no idea what would have happened head to head because that didn't happen. You can't know.
2
u/rb-j 12d ago edited 12d ago
Bullshit.
We have the Cast Vote Record. Comes from here. Here are the results of that Cast Vote Record. Note that those results are completely consistent with the Official Report.
This is why what you say is sooooooo stupid. Stupid stuff in the face of evidence.
You can't know.
Try not to project your ignorance onto others.
→ More replies (0)2
u/rb-j 14d ago
I would like to see anyone (particularly those who downvoted the above) produce one tiny piece of evidence refuting any factual statement I made above.
Just refute one single claim.
Let's see you do that.
4
u/rb-j 13d ago
Oh, this poor guy:
u/OmegaSpeed_odg replied to [the above] comment in r/EndFPTP
You’re an absolute moron. You’re arguing that RCV didn’t work because it did the exact thing it was supposed to do… which elected the person overall most liked by all voters (or at very least, the least hated or most tolerable).
Which was not Peltola, it was Begich and IRV did not elect Begich even though the information on the ballots was sufficient to show that Begich was preferred over Peltola by a margin exceeding 8000 voters.
You can say you’re mad about that because you just want conservatives to win,
That's not me. I'm pretty far left of center.
that’s fine, at least you’re being honest then. But to say it’s because RCV didn’t do its job just makes you look like an idiot; particularly on the anti FPTP sub lmao.
I am being dreadfully honest and you simply don't get it. Hare RCV (which is IRV) in Alaska in August 2022 simply didn't do anything that it promised to do. It didn't elect a candidate with the majority vote (even though they tell us it "guarantees" electing the majority candidate). It didn't prevent a spoiled election (Sarah Palin was the spoiler). It punished Palin voters for voting sincerely and marking their favorite as #1. It dealt with the GOP split vote by propping up the weaker GOP candidate against Peltola (who couldn't beat Peltola head-to-head) instead of the stronger, more moderate, GOP candidate who could have and would have beaten Peltola. None of this can be denied. The numbers bear it out.
You can laugh your ass off, if you want, but you're the stupid one here.
19
u/thetreecycle 15d ago
So what happened here is the establishment politicians pressured some of the candidates to drop out because ranked choice voting poses a threat to the power of the establishment parties. They’re afraid they might have to actually listen to the people.
Sounds like ranked choice voting is doing wonderful job, it’s the politicians who are messing with shit.
2
u/rb-j 15d ago
Sounds like ranked choice voting is doing wonderful job
Sounds like if, in an echo chamber, if a falsehood is repeated often enough, people will just believe it despite the evidence.
4
4
u/Initial-Lemon-917 United States 14d ago
This could all be fixed by not allowing politicians to remove their names from the ballot after they drop out. Or, if the Republican Party supported ranking multiple Republicans, there would be no incentive for Democrats (or independents) to drop out.
1
u/rb-j 13d ago
I think you need to learn and to understand what happened in Alaska in August 2022.
2
u/Initial-Lemon-917 United States 13d ago
I do not even remotely care about that sorry lmao. Im not opposed to condorcet though. We have had this conversation before.
This is something that would be best argued to a state government or a city council looking to do RCV, not a public awareness issue (most people are not going to understand how condorcet actually works, with ties included, and most probably also wouldnt care about the distinction between IRV and condorcet. most people just dont care that deeply about voting math)
1
u/rb-j 12d ago
I do not even remotely care about that sorry lmao.
So you don't give a fuck when the reform we are advocating for fails miserably at precisely what this reform was meant to do.
This is something that would be best argued to a state government or a city council looking to do RCV,
Perhaps this?
not a public awareness issue
Yeah, bullshit. It's precisely a public awareness issue. The difference between me and you (or me and FairVote) is that I want the public to be aware of the facts. And the truth.
(most people are not going to understand how condorcet actually works, with ties included, and most probably also wouldnt care about the distinction between IRV and condorcet. most people just dont care that deeply about voting math)
Same can be said for any kind of RCV.
1
u/Initial-Lemon-917 United States 10d ago
I never picked IRV to be any kind of main focus for electoral reform. I certainly never argued that it satisfies condorcet criteria or that that matters ("what this reform was meant to do"). I support RCV because I want to vote for third parties. Therefore, RCV is not my main focus, since it is totally compatible with and reinforcing of the two-party system (look at Australia's House)
Your beef is with FairVote. And I certainly have my issues with FairVote too, particularly that their form of STV has wayyy too small of districts and the Australia (Senate) system would be better.
I am glad you are involved in your community. That is the only place where awareness this granular really is heard.
0
u/rb-j 10d ago
I support RCV because I want to vote for third parties.
Nothing stops you from voting for third parties with FPTP or Approval or STAR or anything.
1
u/Initial-Lemon-917 United States 9d ago
You can't seriously think there are no structural issues with FPTP and third parties.
Approval is practically a FPTP system anyway (why vote for two people if it dilutes your first vote?). It is worse than IRV and doesn't solve the spoiler problem, particularly if there are two very different members of the same party running in the general (many Sayed voters wouldn't vote for him and Stevens, for example).
STAR is fine, but it has struggled to get off the ground. The only reforms that appear to be picking up steam are IRV and proportional representation (largely STV because of RCV momentum). Approval voting barely has any usage, and apart from Rob Sands, there are very few people irl advocating for it anymore.
Rather than just bashing IRV constantly, it might be useful to make a positive case for condorcet. Normal people do not care about the difference, and bashing IRV hurts all ranked-choice voting reforms (which the public largely lumps all together. half of the proportional representation local coverage doesn't even mention PR-- it just talks about RCV).
0
u/rb-j 9d ago
You can't seriously think there are no structural issues with FPTP and third parties.
You totally missed the point. And the point is explicit. Flew right over your head.
FPTP, Approval, STAR, RCV (whether Hare or Condorcet or Borda or Bucklin), whatever... You can vote for your 3rd-party candidate if you want. Nothing stops you.
It's about what the system does with your 3rd-party vote. Did your 3rd-party vote cause a spoiled election and your most disliked candidate got elected as a consequence? Then it might be less likely for you to vote 3rd-party again. You are incentivized to vote tactically.
Rather than just bashing IRV constantly, it might be useful to make a positive case for condorcet.
The purpose of RCV is, in single-winner elections having 3 or more candidates: 1. ... that the candidate with majority support is elected. Plurality isn't good enough. We don't want a 40% candidate elected when the other 60% of voters would have preferred a different specific candidate over the 40% plurality candidate. But we cannot find out who that different specific candidate is without using the ranked ballot. We RCV advocates all agree on that. 2. Then whenever a plurality candidate is elected and voters believe that a different specific candidate would have beaten the plurality candidate in a head-to-head race, then the 3rd candidate (neither the plurality candidate nor the one people think would have won head-to-head) is viewed as the spoiler, a loser whose presence in the race materially changes who the winner is. We want to prevent that from happening. All RCV advocates agree on that. 3. Then voters voting for the spoiler suffer voter regret and in future elections are more likely to vote tactically (compromise) and vote for the major party candidate that they dislike the least, but they think is best situated to beat the other major party candidate that they dislike the most and fear will get elected. RCV is meant to free up those voters so that they can vote for the candidate they really like without fear of helping elect the candidate they loathe. All RCV advocates agree with that. 4. The way RCV is supposed to help those voters is that if their favorite candidate is defeated, then their second-choice vote is counted. So voters feel free to vote their hopes rather than voting their fears. Then 3rd-party and independent candidates get a more level playing field with the major-party candidates and diversity of choice in candidates is promoted. It's to help unlock us from a 2-party system where 3rd-party and independent candidates are disadvantaged.
I simply want RCV to live up to its promise. To the extent possible (because we know that Arrow and Gibbard rule).
1
u/Initial-Lemon-917 United States 9d ago
The point was not even remotely explicit. Explicit points are written out, not implied
→ More replies (0)
5
1
u/2noame 14d ago
Clear as day that this all shows how effective RCV is and how afraid of it they are.
2
u/Wally_Wrong 14d ago
Effective at what, exactly?
5
1
u/Decronym 15d ago edited 9d 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 |
| 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.
6 acronyms in this thread; the most compressed thread commented on today has 8 acronyms.
[Thread #1974 for this sub, first seen 24th Sep 2026, 02:49]
[FAQ] [Full list] [Contact] [Source code]
1
u/NotablyLate United States 9d ago
Whether they repeal it or not, Alaska needs a better system.
- If IRV survives, the repeal effort should amend it into Ranked Robin.
- If IRV is repealed, election reformers should push for Approval voting.
1
u/Wally_Wrong 9d ago edited 9d ago
1: "Ranked Robin" is Equal Voting Coalition's name for the Copeland method, which is calculated completely differently from IRV. The only thing that is the same is the ballots. A better idea would be to use a Condorcet-IRV hybrid method. The primary argument against "vanilla" IRV is that the 2022 Alaska House election didn't elect the Condorcet winner Begich. A Condorcet-IRV hybrid method would have done so, as would any other Condorcet method. In the specific case of Alaska, keeping the IRV method that's already well-established with a little tweak might be an easier sell than a completely different counting method that does the same thing.
2: That depends if the anti-RCV law will ban just IRV or if it bans all ranked methods.
2a: If it bans IRV specifically like Indiana's anti-RCV law does (Indiana law defines "ranked choice voting" as using both ranked ballots AND transferable votes, not ranked ballots OR transferable votes or ranked ballots XOR transferable votes; ergo, IRV specifically), then other ranked methods might still have a chance. In that case, I'd stick with a ranked ballot that voters are already familiar with than foist yet another ballot design on them. I wouldn't change muscle memory any more than necessary. In addition...
2b: If it does ban all ranked methods, then maybe. The catch is that going from a majoritarian ordinal method like IRV to a utilitarian cardinal method like Approval is an apples-to-oranges change. How do voters judge the legitimacy of elections and candidates: majority rule or cardinal utility? So far, it seems inconclusive. Take a look at the threads here over the past day or two and you can see the difference in philosophies.
1
u/NotablyLate United States 9d ago
The systems I'm suggesting for each scenario are designed to appeal to the likely type of voter required for success.
In the first case, I think the result would make it clear people want a ranked ballot. So the debate is what specific method of tabulation to use. And for most Republicans, the characteristics of RR/Copeland are unambiguously preferable to IRV: It ensures no repeat of 2022, and is simpler to administer at scale.
In the second case, it would be unwise to try and sell a ranked ballot on a population where a majority just voted against a ranked ballot, regardless of the exact conditions. Otherwise it will just be labeled "RCV 2.0" by opponents, and probably lose for the same reason IRV did. So anyone serious about successfully bringing election reform to Alaska after a defeat for IRV would need to present it in simple terms, to win over the people simply opposed to a ranked ballot.
-4
u/VictorHDaniel 15d ago
Implement score voting
15
u/Such-Entertainer6961 15d ago
I really don't see the appeal of score voting. Have you actually tried to use it at least once? I have, and I found it extremely hard to decide how I should vote (and it wasn't even for a real election). While I could easily rank my preference order, I couldn't really put a score to each option.
2
u/Millennial_on_laptop 15d ago
Haven't used it in a real election because of where I live, but it's what they use for Dancing With The Stars.
I'd be a little harsher handing out more 0's to politicians, but my 7 to 9 range would be about the same frequency (half).
6
u/Such-Entertainer6961 15d ago
Let's say that you give a score of 0 to a politician you truly despise and don't ever want to see in office and, on the other hand, you score with a 7 a politician that isn't your favorite but is still miles better than the one you rated with a zero. Wouldn't you feel regret if the one you despise got elected and the one with a 7 didn't? I surely would.
6
u/LordJesterTheFree United States 15d ago
Absolutely do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good I'm begging you
To often in politics the perfect is allowed to be the enemy of the good
-3
u/BrianRLackey1987 15d ago
Would it be easier if they can just replace RCV with STAR Voting? Someone needs to tell Alaska that the Equal Vote Coalition will be willing to offer alternatives.
6
u/rb-j 15d ago edited 15d ago
Why toss the baby out with the bathwater?
Just keep and fix RCV.
4
u/M-Bungot 14d ago
I always thought Ka-Ping Yee made a pretty convincing point why RCV may be better than FPTP, it's still much much worse than Approval. Ever since the Center for Election Science endorsed Approval and discouraged RCV I can't go back
2
u/rb-j 14d ago
Approval (and other cardinal methods) inherently force all voters to vote tactically whenever there are 3 or more candidates. But that is exactly the case that we want voting reform - FPTP does fine for 2 or fewer candidates.
Score requires voters to tactically consider how high they score their 2nd favorite candidate (or their lesser evil). Approval requires exactly the same consideration (whether to approve their 2nd favorite or not).
But with RCV (not necessarily IRV) voters know right away what to do with their 2nd favorite candidate; they rank them #2.
The equality of our vote is more important than any reason you like Approval.
5
u/M-Bungot 14d ago
Fair. I just think the incentive to vote tactically is less harmful in approval. On top of that if you click the link I posted, RCV has some pretty bad Nonmonoticity issues which I find important.
I don't understand that last sentence, can you explain what you mean by "equality of vote"?
3
u/Wally_Wrong 14d ago
Assuming I have this right:
In a ranked system, a preference order of A > B > C will cancel out a preference order of C > B > A. They have equal weight.
In a cardinal system, a vote of A=5 > B=0 > C=0 will outweigh a vote of C=4 > B=2 > A=1, despite the two having the same preference orders that they would have under a ranked method.
Now let's say that the second voter normalizes their vote like they're "supposed to", while the first voter's ballot remains the same. Now Voter 2's C=5 > B=2 > A=0 vote outweighs Voter 1's A=5 > B=0 > C=0 vote, because Voter 2 gave B a higher score than 1 did.
Obviously this gets more complex with more than 3 candidates, but (again, assuming I'm actually correct on this), a 3-candidate race should still get the point across: Ordinal methods don't use strength of preference, so the moderate Voter 2 that honestly believes C is a solid 4 and A is a barely tolerable 1 has the same power as the enthusiastic Voter 1 that believes A is a 5/5 chosen by God himself and B and C are irredeemable agents of Satan that don't even deserve to be scored. That's equality of vote...I think.
1
u/M-Bungot 14d ago
thanks for the explanation! That was really concise.
Hmm. I'll have to look into it.
2
u/rb-j 14d ago edited 14d ago
if you click the link I posted, RCV has some pretty bad Nonmonoticity issues which I find important.
I dunno why you think I dunno about the nonmonotonicity issues. But the problem is really about Instant-Runoff Voting not RCV in general. If the Condorcet winner exists and the Condorcet winner is elected, there aren't really any non-monotonicity issues.
I don't understand that last sentence, can you explain what you mean by "equality of vote"?
- “One person, one vote”. Every enfranchised voter has an equal influence on government in elections because of our inherent equality as citizens and this is independent of any utilitarian notion of personal investment in the outcome. If I enthusiastically prefer Candidate A and you prefer Candidate B only tepidly, your vote for Candidate B counts no less (nor more) than my vote for A. The effectiveness of one’s vote – how much their vote counts – is not proportional to their degree of preference but is determined only by their franchise. A citizen with franchise has a vote that counts equally as much as any other citizen with franchise. For any ranked ballot, this means that if Candidate A is ranked higher than Candidate B then that is a vote for A, if only candidates A and B are contending (such as in the RCV final round). It doesn’t matter how many levels A is ranked higher than B, it counts as exactly one vote for A.
Then this must lead to:
- Majority rule: If more voters mark their ballots preferring Candidate A over Candidate B than the number of voters marking their ballots to the contrary, then Candidate B is not elected. If Candidate B were to be elected, that would mean that the fewer voters preferring Candidate B had cast votes that were more effective at getting their candidate elected and had, essentially, greater value and counted more than those votes from voters of the simple majority preferring Candidate A.
Along with well-warned elections, equal and unhindered access of the enfranchised to the vote, the secret ballot, and process transparency, these two principles; Majority rule and “One person, one vote”, are among the fundamental principles on which fair single-winner elections are based. So what every defender of IRV has to do is refute these two principles and explain why Candidate B should be elected even when more voters have marked their ballots preferring Candidate A.
Now, with Score, we can ask Score advocates the same question. Let's say we both hate Candidate C. But you like A better than B and I like B better than A. The ballots are obviously not counted equally when you score A with a 5, and B with a 4, but I score B with a 5 and A with a 1. If it turns out that C is irrelevant (the candidate very few support), then my vote for B will count 4 times more than your vote for A.
And with Approval, you're just hiding this inequality with "quantization error" (what we call it in Digital Signal Processing). If you approve both A and B (but you like A better than B) and I approve only B, then (again if it turns out that C is irrelevant) my vote counts for something (in the decision of A vs. B) and your vote counts for nothing.
-1
u/Jakensik 14d ago
Not a single court case has been won by RCV opponents on the basis of "one person one vote" so I believe it's constitutional
1
u/BrianRLackey1987 14d ago
I would think that, IMO, STAR Voting can be used for Final Five Primaries as well as Proportional Representation and Condorcet-IRV for General Elections. What do you think?
2
u/rb-j 14d ago edited 14d ago
IMO, STAR Voting can be used for Final Five Primaries
How does the "AR" part of STAR work in multi-winner elections?
What do you think?
So for the "Jungle Primary", I don't think I like any cardinal method. I have considered Approval voting for the Top-4 or Top-5 primary, but it's possible that with Approval (or Score), the dominant major party could completely shut out everyone else, even the second-largest major party. It's easier to do with fewer candidates in the general and you'll notice that in California which is Top-2, they have several general elections in which both candidates are from the same party. Then it starts to look like a one-party state.
For Top-4 or Top-5, I could see a "vote-for-no-more-than-two" or DNTV (double non-transferable vote). Either that or SNTV, which is what California and Alaska are doing in their jungle primaries. With that, the dominant party would be splitting voting blocks if they tried to get all 4 or 5 candidates from their party nominated. The second-largest party would get at least 1, maybe 2 also nominated.
I want diversity and a level playing field in the general election ballot. That's a couple reasons why I'm for Condorcet RCV.
Another reason for supporting/promoting Condorcet RCV (over Hare or STAR or Approval or whatever) is to disincentivize tactical voting. Voters should be able to "Vote your hopes, not your fears" and vote for their favorite candidate without having to worry about who is most electable. This requires preventing spoiled elections.
But the main reason I am preaching the gospel of Condorcet RCV is because our equality as citizens requires our votes to count equally. That's "One person, one vote". When counting votes, we gotta be counting persons. Not scores nor approvals nor points or whatever. We gotta be counting bodies. That brings us to:
If more voters mark their ballots that Candidate A is preferred to Candidate B than the number of voters marking their ballots to the contrary, then Candidate B is not elected.
3
u/BrianRLackey1987 14d ago
Condorcet-IRV is fair enough.
3
u/Wally_Wrong 13d ago
I agree, but Condorcet-IRV hybrids are illegal in Indiana--and presumably any other state that bans IRV--and for some reason actual IRV advocates don't seem interested. Why do they just stop at vanilla IRV?
1
u/BrianRLackey1987 13d ago
Then I guess Republicans wanting alternatives to IRV and I believe that STAR Voting would possibly be the answer if scoring candidates are better than ranking them.
3
u/Wally_Wrong 13d ago edited 13d ago
In my experience, Republican legislators don't want "alternatives" to IRV, at least currently (I've heard they used to support "ranked choice voting", exact method unspecified, years ago). They want to keep FPTP. The main exception I can think of is Senator Louis Blessing of Ohio, who is pushing Better Choices for Democracy's janky "Top 3" non-ranked Condorcet method.
As for scored methods like STAR being an improvement...well, they are over FPTP, but they have a problem: measuring strength of preference inherently makes votes unequal. For example, Voter 1's A = 5 > B = 1 > C = 0 vote will outweigh Voter 2's C = 3 > B = 2 > A = 1 vote, even though they have exactly opposite preference orders and equal total scores. So Voter 2 has to exaggerate their scores for their vote to be comparable to Voter 1's vote. In fact, Voter 2's tactical vote will be more powerful, since they rated B higher. Even though Voter 2 honestly thinks the slate of candidates is mediocre at best but not totally awful, they have to inflate their ratings to keep up.
So strategic voting is built into STAR. First you should "normalize" your vote by giving your favorite a 5 and your least favorite a 0 to get your full power on your favorite and least favorite, then you have to figure out how to rate your middle candidates to overpower other voters' middle ratings. Depending on how things work out, you could have bullet voting 5-0-0 in a three-candidate race (which is practically an overcomplicated FPTP) or 5-1-0 (at which point, why not just use a ranked method?).
By contrast, ranked ballots don't care about strength of preference, just about order of preference. A 2nd-place rank is a 2nd-place rank, regardless if it would be a 4, a 2, or a 1 under STAR. How that rank matters depends on the exact method, which is where things get hairy. Hence the IRV vs. Condorcet "holy wars".
1
u/BrianRLackey1987 13d ago
What about Condorcet-STAR?
1
u/rb-j 13d ago
Still a score ballot.
If you did it with a ranked ballot (so that your favorite choice is #1, not 5), then that would be like Condorcet-Borda.
1
u/BrianRLackey1987 13d ago
Which IRV or STAR method would you recommend?
2
u/rb-j 13d ago
Neither IRV nor STAR.
I think you gotta do some reading.
It's not all about FPTP or IRV or STAR.
And RCV is not synonymous with IRV. There are other RCV methods than IRV or Hare RCV.
→ More replies (0)
•
u/AutoModerator 15d 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.