Видео

One of the other problems with RCV that was only touched on briefly here (32:52) but is covered more in Panel 4 is that of tabulation and auditing. RCV (or IRV) requires votes to be collected and counted centrally as you can’t determine which candidates should be eliminated until _all_ of the votes are in, so you can’t get precinct-level results and likewise can’t audit them at the precinct level. This presents a legal challenge in some states in addition to the logistical challenge because their laws or constitution may _require_ results to be counted at the precinct level. As is pointed out in the next panel, human (or machine) error can happen in any system but when the tallies are done across multiple precincts then errors have a far lower area of impact and are easier to correct than a state-wide error would have.

This was a good discussion; I can see valid points from both the pro-RCV and anti-RCV advocates. These are important considerations for me since a proposal for RCV will be on my state’s ballot this November. (We tried to get STAR voting on the ballot, but it failed to get enough signatures. So for us it’s literally RCV or status quo.)

27:57 CORRECTION: Nebraska also uses a Top-2 People’s Primary.

Hi Mr. Beat! 👋 By the way, the audio and video are noticeably out of sync; video is lagging behind audio by roughly half a second.

It's worse. RCV has all of the key problems of Choose One, Most Votes Wins but just hides them better. In fact it even uses virtual Choose One ballot papers in its counting system to decide the winner, but this is something a lot of people haven't fully realised yet. Also Australia's been using RCV for over one hundred years now and it's been a two-party system over all that time. RCV is a con-trick that's designed to dishearten people and put them off genuine voting reforms like STAR and Approval Voting. Don't fall for it. 👍🤗

The one thing I like about the top X runoffs in Alaska and soon Nevada is that it can put to light some of the problems of IRV that is harder to see than in municipal elections. In a purple state like Nevada where you can have 3 strong candidates, we are much more likely to see Condorcet failures. Also, one good thing about IRV in Alaska is that Lisa Murkowski would not have won the Republican Primary, but she did win with this new system. She could have easily have lost though if Al Gross entered and became a spoiler.

I don't like IRV, but we've got broadband now so we can just send over the entire ballot data. I think the solution is is pretty simple: count random samples of paper ballots for each precinct and compare them to the electronic record to make sure nothing was changed. And stay away from completely electronic voting. The ballot scanners are fine as long as we can match the paper ballot to the electronic record.

This is a really amazing video. I hope something like this is made to explain how Proportional STAR works!

I love the idea of STAR voting.

Personal Opinion you set the Score -3 to +3 to make it more clear. The few reasons is that as you say give your least favored 0 or -3 which is more clear. 0 Represent no preference. When we see the score we would also see if people are positive or negative for the candidates. For examples something like Trump and Kamala might get score closer to 0 while third party might get +1,23 and most hilarious would be if both Kamala and Trump got -1,20 while winner was +2,23 ...

That ending Simpsons clip is so apt.

Curious, would people not give 0 stars to anyone they would normally vote 0-2 stars? I feel people would fear that the stars they give to the candidate they dislike would help them win despite rating them low?

I like this video. It not only displays how star voting works but on second inspection, and it also shows strategies that voters can use (i.e.ranking the most popular candidates all from 0-5 and saving the unpopular ones for last). For example, if you were to add some green fabric to the ballot. Maybe one voter really likes it, but they know the top choices will likely be between the three other fabrics, so they rank everything the same, but give green five stars at the end. The other voters should do the same. This is the case even if you didn't really like or dislike any of the favorites, and you still have a preference but a weak one. If you rank them 0,1, 5, the first time, that wouldn't change the second time even if green is your favorite now.

Idiots trying to hold on to power

The automatic runoff is unnecessary. Score voting is better.

Magnífico

What a beautiful animated explanation! So much better than the original!

I'd trust anyone featured in this video to be President of the US over every single candidate currently running. I don't even know their politics beyond a desire to improve democracy but I'm convinced each one of them would do a better job.

Is StarVoting the same as Rankchoice voting?

Plot Twist: This is yet another one of the Simpsons predictions for the future

Maybe, but I can see it devolving into a lesser of 2 evils trap if the details are not just right. I need to refresh my study of voting systems, its been years since I spent much time on it. WA state doesn't have the points system in the primary, but it is a non-partisan top-two runoff system, and it still ends up being lesser of 2 evils and pretty lame for any sort of 3rd party or independent. I know the magic here is in the star rating portion but I see most people still devolving to "5 star to all my acceptables and 0 all others" simply because they misunderstand that stars for a second pick don't undermine their first pick.(and the big money parties will pumpout propaganda feeding this myth which people will eat up because of well documented levels of herp a derp.) (WA does not do this for presidential slot. For president general election ballot it is still a traditional single round of single selection with winner takes all setup. However ballot access is easier for indy and 3rd party candidates than going through the state level primary.)

Having someone dress like that really undermines the cause

Communities of color have not been excluded from the voting process in over 50 yrs. Stop playing victim

Idk why this is in my algorithm, but I am so thankful I don’t live in Oregon. Sorry but I just don’t want that life

The weirdos behind her with their hand gestures takes a lot away from this

Cheating

Lie. It will make it so illegal aliens and faked elections are common.

Republicans haven't won an Oregon majority since mail-in voting began. This is another means for Democrats to maintain control of people. When the elections administrator questioned the security of Oregon's voting system gov Kate Brown fired him. ❤️🙏

Yay, STAR Voting!

I'm voting for STAR because it is so much better than the one we have, choose one plurality, which is the one most prone to vote-splitting, spoilers, and gaming the vote. STAR voting has been scientifically researched, peer-reviewed, and come out at the top of the heap of improved voting methods. STAR for Eugene will also eliminate the primary election for mayor and city council, simplifying our municipal elections.

How difficult is it to pick 1 person for 1 job

Go, STAR Voting! For freer and fairer democracy 🌟

This is a cute introduction to STAR and does a decent job showing how our current (plurality) voting system is bad. I do wish it had explained a bit further what the “Election Accuracy by Voting Method” slide near the end is all about and how that accuracy is measured.

Eugene is making history. Super excited for STAR voting to be a thing so we can vote our honest preferences

I wish this had been posted last month, before the primary ballots were sent out. I’m already convinced and had dropped off my ballot earlier this week. I’m curious though: you mentioned that the “favorite pet” election was online. Is that still up and if so it is still open?

This is BRILLIANT!!

Can you compare systems where multiple seats are given to the voters?

This model is only based on single member districts correct? Do some work better in Multi Member Districts?

Great job Sass!

Hello, do you think you could make a simple educational video on Proportional STAR similar to the one about STAR voting? I don't mind reading on the website, or watching an over 2-hour video, but most people would prefer a simple video I think

So how would this stop the money issue with super PACs,and all the outside money?

Please compare your proposed STAR (where scores of 5 are actually counted as 5 votes in the first scoring step) to a STAR-system, where the scores are divided by the number of voter scores.

What do you think of modifying the first counting step, by dividing the scores by total scoring points of that voter? This way every vote has the same weight. In the current proposal, you can vote strategically to prevent one or a few candidates, by ging the rest of the candidates all 5 stars.

Here is a flaw of the first counting step: If a voter gives multiple candidates 5 stars and only one candidate 0 stars, his vote against that 0-star candidate counts more than when a voter only votes his most favorable candidate 5 stars and the other ones one star. So votes don’t have equal weights. You could weight their stars by dividing them over the total amount of stars given… BUT this probably is by design, because this first voter, which votes counted greatly in the first counting step, his vote doesn’t count most of the times in the second step. So voting by that strategy is actually a decision between preventing evil or truly expressing your ranked choice.

If only IRV advocates were truthful about the pros and cons like FairVote.

I feel like the answer is if you "support" rank choice voting (RCV), should REALLY switch to supporting STAR Voting since it's the best overall and requires the same amount of infrastructure investment in terms of voting machine hardware and software. It was made in a brain tank by mathematicians and political scientists. If you want a cheaper semi-solution, use approval voting. That way you can use the same scantron voting machines and same paper. (This is essentially already done with multi-seat elections such as community boards and can be easily expanded to single-seat elections). All these methods make it so people can vote for 3rd parties and their main party (eliminating the spoiler effect). As well promoting more consensus

Such powerful remarks. Thank you Emma.

Imagine my preferred choice loses because I ranked them a 4 instead of a 5. Infuriating.

this is not simple. You need to decide not only who you prefer but need to have enough of an opinion to decide between if they are a 3,4,5. Also you are punishing people who have a low opinion on all candidates but still have preferences.

illiterate people should not vote in the year 2024