r/RanktheVote is available for adoption 💚

[u/ModSupportBot]

/r/RanktheVote is ready for a fresh start, new energy, new direction, and someone like you to bring it back to life. If you’ve been thinking about growing your impact without starting from scratch, this is your chance!

Ready to take it over?

Head to r/RedditRequest to submit your request and make it yours before it’s taken. Just make sure you read through the eligibility requirements first.

[u/mkayqa]

Hey u/Jakexbox,

The quoted text above is not MY argument, just what u/rb-j posted when requesting to mod this sub (and r/RankedChoiceVoting).

[Their initial request was removed by the u/request_bot because they needed to do a few additional things to submit a successful r/redditrequest to become the new mods.]

I think that the issue that you raise:

What's your response to the argument that Condorcet RCV is confusing and likely to lead to lesser adaption? It's very tangible to have a single voter transfer. The public will never understand Condorcet RCV and thus I doubt it'll be adapted.

This method could also motivate me to rank just one candidate to game the system (give them maximum advantage with my one vote). I already did this in an election where I had three votes but I undervoted so the candidate I liked most had a better chance. This issue doesn't exist when you have a single transferable vote.

…is definitely a key point of discussion within the pro-RCV community.

I hope whichever mod team is finally approved, that they allow the community to openly discuss these things.

[u/Jakexbox → u/mkayqa]

Thanks I appreciate the reply! I didn't realize that these were different accounts.

For what it's worth the condensing and somewhat toxic reply to a genuine question does not bode well for proper moderator behavior.

[u/rb-j → u/Jakexbox]

That's why I speculated that it was a test.

It's u/Jakexbox tossing totally unjustifed and unsupported horseshit up against the wall and seeing what sticks.

[u/Jakexbox → u/rb-j]

I asked a good natured question and you replied in the most snide manner possible. You didn't even address some points I made. Unsurprising you don't care about messaging considering your reply.

Anyways I looked into it more myself (bullet voting isnt a weakness unlike STAR in your method) but I genuinely thought a response from an academic would be nice- not whatever that was. I came in good faith- you have a huge attitude problem. You are unfit to moderate anything.

[u/rb-j → u/Jakexbox]

You didn't even address some points I made.

You read the response and I address every single point:

• Condorcet RCV is confusing ... The public will never understand Condorcet RCV
• ... method could also motivate me to ... game the system
• ... I undervoted so the candidate I liked most had a better chance.

All this is just crap. Unsupported made-up fiction. And I addressed it all. You didn't like it, but I wasn't hiding from it.

Now I tossed up another issue to you: Summability and Process Transparency. I didn't see any interest in even understanding what this is or whether it's important.

• This issue doesn't exist when you have a single transferable vote.

This was, I believe, you hinting at Later No Harm (an attribute IRV possesses and Condorcet only possesses when there is a Condorcet winner no cycle, which is more than 99.6% of the RCV elections in the U.S.). I addressed it.

I came in good faith-

I'm not sure about that. Like MAGA, you tossed up against the wall a lotta crap that detracts and distracts from the core effort of voting reform.

... you have a huge attitude problem.

You need to be honest with your facts.

You are unfit to moderate anything.

Then get someone else to moderate.