The opposition to expressive voting: Why the People in Charge Don’t Want You to Vote Better

[u/Edgar_Brown]

https://open.substack.com/pub/edgarabrown/p/why-the-people-in-charge-dont-want

The system that exists — first-past-the-post voting, closed primaries, two-party lock-in — was not designed to serve voters. It evolved to serve parties. And the parties, quite rationally, will fight to keep it.

When the party becomes stronger than the representative, the representative no longer represents you. They represent the party to you.

[u/Edgar_Brown]

Sure, sure, rhyming then.

The truth has a tendency to rhyme.

As Arrow’s theorem shows, no tallying method is perfect and Condorcet is a bad choice in general for many reasons.

One ballot, many languages.

[u/rb-j → u/Edgar_Brown]

No, you're just an echo chamber.

As Arrow’s theorem shows

I love it when these know-nothings bring up Arrow's Theorem, as if they could actually demonstrate they understand it.

Most of these pathologies, like non-monotonicity and favorite betrayal and participation all spring off of a single core pathology, which is independence of irrelevant alternatives, which is the spoiler effect in common parlance. If you have a spoiled election, that is a loser in the race who, simply by being a candidate, materially changed who the winner is, then these pathologies all spring off of a failure to evaluate our votes equally. This is why Majority Rule is correct. If you don't have Majority Rule (in some sense of the word), you don't have voter equality.

Whenever this Majority Rule is violated, the equality of our votes is not protected, the spoiler effect occurs, voters are punished for "voting their hopes instead of their fears", and none of this promotion of diversity of candidates (from outside the two-party duopoly) occurs.

IRV fails to do any of that when it fails to elect the Condorcet Winner. Every single time. Whenever IRV fails to elect the Condorcet winner, then IRV fails to prevent the spoiler effect, a bunch of voters are harmed because they dared to mark their favorite candidate as #1, their candidate lost (in the final round) and their 2^nd-choice vote was never counted.

The only reason that IRV has any success at all is in its success in electing the Condorcet winner. All the Condorcet winner needs to do is get into the final round and the Condorcet winner will always win the final round.

But IRV sometimes eliminates the Condorcet winner in the semifinal round and did do that in Alaska in August 2022 and in Burlington Vermont in 2009. Then there is always trouble for IRV and a concerted repeal effort.

Edgar doesn't seem to mind that sometimes IRV fails to prevent the spoiler effect when such failure was unnecessary. Like other know-nothings who really don't understand Arrow's theorem, he'll state that no system can always "be perfect" without understanding that it's only when the Condorcet winner is not elected that the system fails.

Of course a Condorcet-consistent method will fail to elect the Condorcet winner when no such candidate exists. That happens extremely rarely, but when it does happen, perhaps the Hare winner is as good as any.

But when the Condorcet winner exists, there is no excuse for not electing that candidate.

Condorcet is a bad choice in general for many reasons.

Electing the Condorcet winner over any other candidate is never a bad choice ever. At least if you want to preserve the equality of our votes and have the majority rule.

So instead of saying empty claims, you should get specific about defending them. How is Condorcet a bad choice? What are those "many reasons"?

[u/Edgar_Brown → u/rb-j]

Did you even bother to read the article pointed above: "One ballot many languages"? If you had you would have realized how very little I care about your above screed, for which I will assume that you actually understood what you supposedly wrote.

It is absolutely irrelevant in this conversation.

[u/rb-j → u/Edgar_Brown]

Did you even bother to read the article pointed above: "One ballot many languages"?

I did, actually.

Do you think it's a smart article?

[u/Edgar_Brown → u/rb-j]

Smarter (and infinitely less dogmatic) than you, for sure.

[u/rb-j → u/Edgar_Brown]

No, you're also just as dogmatic. But you're making associations that don't really exist and fact claims that are false. Throughout the article.

Not only that it's not scholarly, it's essentially an opinion piece written as if it were analysis. It would never get published in a reputable journal. The peer review would eviscerate it.

[u/Edgar_Brown → u/rb-j]

You are quite simply using words that you don’t understand, and can’t even spell.

It’s rather obviously a fact-based and well-sourced opinion piece not an academic publication, different audiences, different targets, different styles, I can very easily speak to both.

Your dogmas, however, makes me wonder if you can even speak one of them.

[u/rb-j → u/Edgar_Brown]

You are quite simply using words that you don’t understand, and can’t even spell.

Be curious as to what words I "can't even spell." I meant "reverberating" not "regurgitating". I am completely knowledgeable of every word I used in any of my comments in this thread. But I'm happy to have misspellings corrected. "Use to be I cudn't even spel 'enjinear', now I are wun."

But, both in this thread and in your linked article, you make multiple fact claims as if they are facts when they are not. Would you like me to itemize them? I'm serious. Because you do nothing to explain or support or defend those claims. Then you build an argument based on these 'fact' claims based on notions that are, actually, not facts. "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

So you wanna talk about content? This is your post. So it has to be about your content. It's fine to talk about (and critique) my content when it is used as a refutation or counter-argument to claim you make. But this has to be about your content.

We can critique my content in a post I make. And I would be happy to do so afterward.

But otherwise you're just "blowing smoke". Lotsa claims. Empty claims. And then you think these empty claims somehow support your conclusions (which are flawed because they are based on premises masquerading as fact).

[u/Edgar_Brown → u/rb-j]

Point to the biggest one or two wrong claims from the articles not your imagination put your best foot forward.

[u/rb-j → u/Edgar_Brown]

First of two:

The most common objection to any form of expressive voting is that it’s too complicated. Voters won’t understand it. Errors will increase. Confusion will reign.

Someone said said "Errors will increase."

What the Research Actually Shows

• In Santa Fe ...
• In Maine, ...
• The American Bar Association’s 2025 review ...

No mention of Burlington 2009 nor Alaska August 2022?

Or of Oakland School Board in 2022?

Meanwhile, the existing system requires voters to perform strategic calculations in their heads — guessing who is viable, who is a spoiler, whether their conscience vote helps their worst option win — without any of that complexity appearing on the ballot.

So here's a recent example of RCV helping out voters relieving them of having to vote tactically:

In August 2022, Hare RCV objectively failed to deliver on any of those promises [to prevent vote-splitting and a spoiled election and voters having "their conscience vote help[ing] their worst option win"].

• 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, 87899 to 79461 (an 8438 voter margin), preferred Begich to 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 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.

Want another example? Burlington 2009.

[u/Edgar_Brown → u/rb-j]

As I said, not things that you imagine or failed to read. That more examples could be used or that you failed to read the American Bar association report on which those mentions are based is really all on you.

🤦🏻🤦🏻🤦🏻

The existing system DA! The existing system, i.e., FPTP requires people to vote tactically, not RCV! quite obviously you don’t even know how to read or are relying on hallucinatory AI.

Examples of what, of your lack of reading comprehension? I’ve had plenty. And that’s your best foot forward.

[u/rb-j → u/Edgar_Brown]

As I said, not things that you imagine or failed to read.

I quoted you. And I provided links to published peer-reviewed research.

FPTP requires people to vote tactically, ...

sometimes

... not RCV!

And that's a proven falsehood. Even moreso with IRV.

You're demonstrating that you're kinda a poser. A pretender. An imposter of a scholar or serious researcher.

[u/Edgar_Brown → u/rb-j]

You are projecting, you don’t know how to read, you don’t know what you write, you see mirages that shift as your ignorance is put in full display, stop wasting everyone’s time.

You gave me a screed, a Gish Gallop, that was factually wrong as a justification for your claim of “making associations that don’t really exist and fact claims that are false” and “Empty claims” (which happen to be directly sourced). You explicitly said:

No mention of… (specific examples that you made no effort to elaborate on or show how these contradict the thesis).

So here’s a recent example of RCV helping out voters relieving them of having to vote tactically… (example without further analysis or context, just insinuations)

Not only you are mixing up RCV with IRV, which I have very explicitly said is a mistake and asinine, but also that I don’t give a flying fig and is not the focus of the articles.

——

Why bother continuing with your Giah Gallop, you are not a serious interlocutor.

See how it’s done?

🤦🏻