OK, after replying to a bunch of comments, I just have to say how much I hate calling it "rank choice voting." There are many ranking methods. It would be better to call it by its original name which is "instant runoff voting."
Yes, instant runoff voting is a specific version of ranked choice voting but people use them interchangeably. To clarify this distinction, I like to use “ranked preferential” for the umbrella term.
The first requirement is to accept there's a problem, second that we're lied to, third who is lying, fourth why they are lying, fifth to realize there's an alternative at all, sixth to take person responsibility to investigate on ones own, and seventh have confidence in the power of truth over fear of peer approval.
I am all for approval voting, but I don't think Aaron did a good job explaining it. The problem with rank choice voting is that order of elimination is very important and it isn't done based on merit. It is risky voting for your favorite because you have to be certain he can win the final round against the guy you hate. If he can't, voting for him can help eliminate someone who can beat the guy you hate in the final round. The thing I like about approval voting is that it is easy to organize voting blocs around issues. If you only care about legalizing pot, but vote for all the candidates endorsed by the "citizens for legalizing pot." You don't have to worry which one is more electable.
Agree that Aaron didn't explain things as well as he could have but for a different reason. Right at the end he states that for states in a national popular vote that don't use the same system, a traditional state election votes can be summed into the other approval voted states. I don't think that's the case. I would think there would be a voting dilution effect against the candidates running in that traditional state. The dominant candidate (winner) in that state may fair well in the national accounting but everyone else would not.
You seem very knowledgeable about the various types of voting systems, but I am really struggling with the basics. I mean, I don't see how X won because Y got eliminated in the first round, but it wouldn't have mattered if Z got eliminated instead, because... I can't even articulate what I don't understand, smh. Do you know where I can get a good grounding in the various systems, preferably with animation (I saw one with post-its on ranked choice, I think, and it made sense at the time)? Learning disabilities stink! Thanks for any advice you have!
@@kayehenry3737 another name for "rank choice voting" is Instant runoff voting. If you do a youtube search for "IRV favorite betrayal", the video by the Center for Election Science that demonstrates what I'm talking about. I don't have a video talking about the different voting systems, but there is a good website that compares them in simulations. If you want to see it, google "yee graph voting simulation".
we have used ranked choice in Australia, and this very very rarely comes up as an issue, mainly because we think more in terms of electing a candidate, than blocking a candidate... Winners in ranked choice tend toward the centre, and when politicians figure this out, the winner and runner up end up being very similar even though one is typically left and one is right, from a FPTP perspective they would be unelectablly indifferent!
I wish the guest would have mentioned "score voting". Score voting is a variant of approval voting. In score voting you give each candidate a score on a scale, say 0 to 5, similar to how you would rate a product on Amazon, for example. The candidate with the highest average rating (or highest total score) wins the election. Whereas with approval voting you simply approve or disapprove the candidates on the ballot, which is the same as scoring the candidates on a scale of 0 or 1.
technically approval voting is a variant of pure score voting. the range(or score) family of voting systems has a major notable benefit over the ranking family, which is that it is the entire act of ranking which creates strategic voting in the first place. however, pure score voting is actually the method with the worst strategic voting, partly since youre still indirectly ranking, which is why approval voting fares best, as it has only two blocks (ok or not ok) instead of thinking about subjective scores
Alan Ivar doesn’t approval voting have the issue of not being expressive enough since you can’t say that you like one candidate much more than another candidate you just like?
I didn't understand what the problem with ranked choice voting was. He says there was 3 candidates, the democrat got eliminated so alot of the votes went to the the progressive so that the progressive won. What's the problem? Isn't that how the system is supposed to work? I don't get it.
He did a bad job of explaining it. The problem is that the Democrat would have beaten the Progressive head-to-head, but he got eliminated in an early round. The Democrat was the Republicans' second choice and if they hadn't put the Republican first, they would have gotten a better result. You might think this isn't a problem because the progressive won and you got the result you wanted, but it could very easily work against us with different demographics.
@@futurestoryteller I said **MIGHT**. I have no idea what he thinks about that, but someone could potentially think, "So, RCV helps conservatives lose? What is the problem." I wanted to address that just in case anyone thought that. It is pretty common for people to just want something that makes their side win. That is why the Republicans largely like the electoral college.
And it's no better than Plurality. Ranked choice voting (IRV) only serves the duopoly. Your "wasted vote" no longer threatens and influences a similar party. It just transfers to the dominant party and your first rank is ignored.
It seems that his criticism of Ranked Choice Voting surrounding it's effects on conservatives is flawed. If a conservative candidate is disqualified because they got less first votes than the progressive and liberal candidates, that doesn't mean conservatives helped their guy lose, it just means there are less conservatives than either liberals OR progressives, for example 30% con, 35% lib, 35% prog. If he thinks that voting for the conservative candidate hurts that candidate, he's wrong. The goal isn't to put conservatives and liberals at equal advantage, it's to put the side with more people in power. If you have less people than the other side, you don't win. I hope David clarifies either that I'm wrong and why or that this guest is wrong and why, as I have.
The problem was more people preferred the Democrat to the Progressive, but the progressive still won. It is an example of how voting for your favorite can still hurt you. If the Republicans had put the Democrat first, the would have gotten a better result. This is a problem that can hurt progressives too, but this time it hurt Republicans.
@@Mutex50 but if Republicans put the Democrat second, then if the number of democrats and Republicans is greater than the number of progressives, the Democratic candidate wins. If the progressive still wins, the progressives and Republicans put together still weren't enough and the progressive deserves to win
@@jackv9425 That is not how it works. In the rounds, it only counts the first place votes and ignores the second place votes. The one that has the least first place votes is eliminated and his votes go to the next candidate. The Democrats favored the Progressive over the Republican, so the Progressive won, but If the Democrat faced off with the Progressive, the Democrat would have won because the Republicans favored the Democrat over the Progressive. The Progressive would have beaten both the Democrat and the Republican head to head, but he never had the chance to go head to head with any of them because he was eliminated in an early round. The problem is the order of elimination.
@@jackv9425 No, the democrat candidate was eliminated during the first round, therefore the votes went to the progressive candidate and they won. The point he's making is that republican voters would have had a better outcome in the elections (i.e. the victory of the democrat candidate instead of the progressive one) if the republican candidate was eliminated in the first round, thus making the democrat one gain their votes and win the election. I believe the ranked choice voting system is still preferrable to the approval one, because the latter always favors the most centrist candidate.
@@Mutex50 but the first votes for the Democrat don't change when the Republican is eliminated, so the conservatives 2nd votes are combined with the liberals 1st votes. The progressive also keeps his first votes. Therefore, if the progressive still wins, they had more votes than the Democrat and Republican 1st votes had combined and deserve the win. I still don't see how the system puts conservatives at a disadvantage, unless they don't rank their 2nd and 3rd choices. Please tell me if I'm missing something.
No, it is not better. I need to be able to rank, e.g., in 2016: 1) Bernie 2) Jill 3) Anyone else who is better than Hillary 4) Hillary 5) Anyone who is not Trump Approval voting doesn't help me as much in the above situation. I want to approve Bernie and Jill but I also want to communicate that Hillary is less terrible than Trump (because of the Supreme Court) without approving her.
I see what you mean. Score Voting is similar but slightly more complex. Score Voting would have you rate each candidate on a scale. The prompt might be something like 'Please choose one of: 1 (strongly disapprove), 2, (moderately disapprove), 3 (neutral), 4 (moderately approve), 5 (strongly approve)'. The Center for Election Science likes this slightly better than Approval Voting on the dimension of utility, but somewhat less on the dimension of simplicity. This narrow difference is why they have advocated for Approval Voting. With Approval Voting, the question you ask is simply which candidates you approve of. So you should simply ask would you approve of a Hillary presidency? Vote yes if and only if you do. You'd then be right to ask, "Approve relative to what??" And then you should decide whether it's more important to penalize Trump for being so terrible (and approve Hillary) or whether it's more important to penalize Hilary for being even more terrible than the next worst candidate than Trump is more terrible than her (and not approve Hillary).
Yes, you could just combine the two approaches and assign a percentage of your 100% vote for each candidate. You could choose to give 100% to Bernie or 70% to Sanders, 25% to Jill and 5% to Hillary.
@@0MVR_0 Limiting the amount you can vote still means you're making trade offs between candidates. The most important thing to preserve is independence between candidates.
@@quitetheidea5996 It's important to not forget that Approval Voting works with existing voting machines. That's a massively lower barrier to entry for AV when it comes down to approving the reform.
I like ranked voting which i see as giving more candidates the opportunity to air their views and concerns, and for us to do serious research to learn about many candidates rather than the top presented media moguls.
Ok so the main argument against RCV is apparently that it can lead to the most widely acceptable candidate not winning. So how common would this be. 20% of elections? 2%? 0.02%?
Approval voting seems to me to be quite a ridiculous notion. Ultimately, you have to pick someone. Just saying "who do you like?" would lead to candidates saying nothing just to try to get approval. This is the exact opposite of what we should want.
Ranked-choice never leads to the most widely acceptable candidate not winning, that is the reason for using it. People get upset when the plurality winner comes in second, despite getting the most first-place votes. They're nothing but sore losers. That situation is precisely RCV working as intended. The most popular candidate was elected.
@@wvu05 : no, approval voting encourages broad appeal. So, it'd encourage candidates to say and do things that appeal to the majority, and it'd help avoid extremist candidates winning.
Every alternate vote is better than using a popular vote. Any of the flaws of a voting system are the flaws inherent in democracy itself. They are necessary flaws, and better than minority rule. The bus to Abilene paradox is the idea that people can vote for a candidate that they don’t really like but they vote for that choice because they thought everybody would. But it’s necessary for people to be able to choose a candidate that nobody wants, For the group to make a mistake and pick not their first choice or top choice when you do majority polls on the candidates. That’s a necessary flaw. And more than one run off or a primary for example changes the election entirely. And single run off single transferable would be different than single run off ranked choice. When the population is large the ranked choice vote and approval vote are about the same or equivalent.
The simplest way to put it is the popular vote has the spoiler effect, the lesser of two evils cycle which deterministically enforces two parties who eventually become fringe or not representative of the largest plurality or even the majority, and so also we see minority rule as an outcome. Who would thought right - we’ve been telling ourselves this whole time that the popular vote was democracy or enabled representative government, but the Princeton study for example has proven through data analysis that the government is largely plutocratic in the Us. The will of the people is mostly ignored. The elections are a facade of democracy or choice as George Carlin said. Alternate votes as a sampling method- because not everybody is going to vote especially in the US where over 100 million don’t vote, the alternate vote whether it be single transferable, ranked choice, or approval vote - these do NOT have the spoiler effect, They do NOT tend to lesser of two evils thereby enabling many parties who all win and have power. But all vote systems have what was called the arrows impossibility theorem which is really a bad way to frame in my opinion. Instead of impossibility these are necessary flaws inherent in polling and voting methods as well as the strange things that can happen when you aggregate voting populations...
try Ranked Pairs Voting (NOT R.C.V.) or other Condorcet voting systems ! better than approval voting and ranked choice voting but more complex to count !!!
2020 Dem primaries should be a good example case, with a diversity of policy views and splitting. I'm pretty sure few preferred Biden and even fewer would have ranked him second. Ranked and Approval likely would have had different outcomes, but I believe Ranked Choice would have been most satisfying for the majority.
Approval voting seems like it would over represent more radical parties. Say we have a far right party, a centrist, and a socialist party. Now I'm a center left in my politics. I'd prefer the liberal party to win but the socialist party would be acceptable to me. So I check two boxes along with many people like me because we really don't want the far right party to win. But a small group of radical left voters check only one box for the socialists. End result is the socialists win even though most voters prefer the centrist party. It seems like this sort of system would encourage more negative campaigns as making people think "anyone but X" will be beneficial to the more radical parties on the other wing. It's very beneficial to radical parties to create fear (even moreso than it is now) and could win them elections. So this sounds good in theory but I can definitely see how radical groups can game this for their own benefit.
You may be forgetting about centrists who will only vote for the centrist party. As well as center-right voters who will vote for both the centrist and the far-right candidates.
@@JayQuigleyPlayQuickly forget about left/right. The scenario would just as easily go the other way where a far right party takes power and you'd have to concede that more people want the far right party, but the reality is that for many people on the left the centre right party is more acceptable. The problem with this kind of voting scheme is that you aren't accurately quantifying exactly how much people would be dissatisfied with every result. I would be somewhat dissatisfied if a center right candidate won, but I would be extremely dissatisfied if a far right candidate won. I would be very satisfied of the center left candidate won, and somewhat satisfied it's the far left candidate won. Which boxes should I check? Well the obvious answer is the center left and far left. Then the results come in and out turns out the far right candidate won. Shit... if I had have known the far right candidate had a chance, I would have checked off the center right candidate because I would have preferred that result over the far right candidate. I guess I voted the wrong way. So next election I check off the center right candidate as well as the left wing candidates. The center right candidate wins. Well at least the far right candidate didn't get in this time. But then I discover that had I not checked off the center right candidate then the center left candidate would have won. Once again I voted the wrong way. This kind of system creates a hell of a lot of game theory. It only works if we assume no one is going to try to exploit this game theory for their own game. I don't think that's a safe assumption. You might say that I shouldn't be thinking of voting strategically, but that just means that is be conceding the election to those that do vote strategically. The only way this system tells the optimal result is if everyone is good and never try to game the system. Stems that rely on people being good don't tend to work out well.
MMP is proportional, which is great, but you can also create proportional systems with Approval and Score voting as long as there's a system of apportionment. Check out Proportional Approval Voting, or RRV: www.rangevoting.org/RRV.html
...OK, how was that choice problem bad? The whole point of ranked voting is to have many "run-off" elections in a row. Assuming your voting for your own interest. If just the progressive candidate and the conservative had been the only candidates the progressive still would have one regardless of the voting system. The whole voting for the democratic candidate to help yours win is silly, cause there is no guarantee that those that voted for your progressive candidate would have voted republican. OK, say there is 100 voters from the 3 candidates, lets say 40 go to republican, 35 go to the progressive, and 25 go to the democrat. Under normal 1st past the post the republican wins, but with the ranking system, the democrats votes get distributed. If it splits between the two evenly, republicans still with at about 52 to 48 but since the democrats have more in common with the progressives lets say they get most of it. Now it would be a progressive victory at 55 to 45. Now this suggestion of ranking the democrat is dumb lets set up our election again with our 40 republicans and a fourth of them try to be clever with the system so 10 end up with democrat as first pick; we end up with 35-d,35-p, and 30-r. OOPS surprise surprise now the republican is in last and that means they are off the board. Now its just between the split 30 votes. Lets say a 20 to ten split and we end up with a a score of 55 to 45 again, with progressive victory. Voting against your own candidate does not help. No matter the numbers, if you take your 1st vote to try to go against the other candidate. You are giving your own candidate a -1 against the one you are voting for. Even if you did finagle it to you managed to calculate out how many people need to vote so that r is sill ahead but the d is ahead of p, there is no guarantee that the progressives would put there 2nd as the republicans. ..although, if you could (somehow) manage to get juuuust enough r voters to put d 1st to beat out p AND the p vote was exactly half for one and half the other THEN you could pull out a victory. BUT that is only assuming the p vote is half and half AND you know just how many votes there are to put over the democrat over the progressive. You would have know exactly how many people were voting and what they were voting for and coordinate x number of people to vote against there own party. And hope that the progressives side more to you then the democrats. And assuming the numbers are even close. At that point though, your not really looking to have a fair election at this point huh? EDIT: I think the approval voting system would work pretty well too
no, it's worse. The point... with RCV you vote for every person in order of preference... if you approve of everyone, however, your preference is ignored.
The preferences don't translate into accurate representation though. Voting for your favorite can help you least favorite win. The order of elimination is important and it is not done based on merit with RCV. With approval voting, you can effectively form voting blocs around issues and force politicians to pay attention to those issues get the votes. If the only thing you care about is legalizing pot, then you can just vote for all the candidates who are endorsed by "Citizens for Legalizing Pot." If you also care about net neutrality, you can vote for all the candidates mutually endorsed by "Citizens for Legalizing Pot" and "Citizens for Net Neutrality." Citizens can make effective votes without worrying about elect-ability.
@@Spazster50 but approval voting can also lead to sabotaging other candidates you may agree with to increase the odds that your favorite candidate wins. ruclips.net/video/yhO6jfHPFQU/видео.html This video gives examples. So both systems have their flaws. I PERSONALLY think the flaws of RCV are less bad than those of Approval Voting. (at least Approval voting in its base form. Score voting may have more merit)
In this approval voting system, it's possible that there could be more than one person with more than 50% of the vote, so then you have to choose the candidate that's highest up over the 50% mark. So again that just becomes another "first past the post" system, except you award the win to the highest majority winner, rather than the highest minority winner. With ranked choice voting, there's no guessing, someone will eventually go over the 50% mark, and only that one person will go over that mark, and nobody else. So the possible weird instances of major candidates not making it past the first cut in ranked choice voting is not likely to happen enough times to worry about. A candidate who is the overwhelming 2nd choice, but barely a 1st choice, must have something wrong with their policies, otherwise why aren't they more people's 1st choice?
When you say Ranked Choice Voting, you're talking specifically about the Alternative Vote (aka Instant Runoff Voting). Borda Count is also a form of Ranked Choice Voting, where the voting is the same, but the counting is different. Single Transferable Vote is also Ranked Choice Voting. Approval Voting is completely in line with the one person one vote principle, since every voter gives a yes or a no to every candidate.
The electoral college is not necessarily a problem. It's arguably (and was thoroughly argued) that EC balances urban vs rural interests. It's "unfair" by design. Without EC, candidates would only focus on rich educated urban interests. Which is a realistic problem to this day.
The electoral college functions as intended -- what some call a "failure" due to differences from the popular vote is actually the exact merit of the system: it elects the candidate with majority support in the vast majority of counties and municipalities, with small, densely populated regions unable to concentrate federal power/influence. However, we can still improve it by adopting range voting, with the electors then placing their votes for whichever candidate has the highest score; all that is required for your state electors to better represent your preferences as a voter is a state constitutional amendment/referendum rather than a federal constitutional amendment.
I don't personally give a shit what it was intended for, the framers are dead, fuck what they intended things to be. They don't have to live with the nation anymore. So why should We care what they intended?
Screw all the weird shit. I'd just be freaking thrilled to make it one person one vote. No electoral college crap. And I also think the states should be required to use non-partisan outside of politics groups to make their district maps.
More people preferred the Democrat to the Progressive, but the Progressive still won. It is an example of how voting for your favorite can help the candidate you like least to win.
Using Burlington, VT is problematic. I've lived in Vermont most of my life and can tell you that a Progressive candidate (Democratic or Vermont Progressive Party) would always be preferential over a Republican. Saying that a more moderate (Democrat) would have been a better choice does not fit the demographic of progressive area like Burlington. IRV did as it was designed to do in the 2009 race. Also, the fact that a 3rd party (not Democrat not Republican) won that race goes to prove that RCV/IRV can help break up the two-party system whereas Approval Voting seeks to keep control in a two-party system. Clearly Burlington, VT seeks progressive candidates because Bob Kiss lead Andy Montroll by 5% in that election.
Bob Kiss only lead Andy Montrol by 5% when the vote was split with other candidates in the first round. Under that logic, the Republican Kurt Wright lead Bob Kiss by 4%. In an actual head to head match up, the rankings show that Andy Montrol would have beaten Bob Kiss 4067 to 3477 (53.9% to 46.1%).
@@Mutex50 What you are describing is the condorcet winner. Approval Voting does not select the condorcet winner. RCV actually does select condorcet quite often. It isn't guaranteed with RCV or AV. What I am saying is that Burlington VT clearly wanted a progressive. A progressive won. Bob Kiss had more support when Andy Montroll was eliminated. Kurt picked up another 11.2% in the final round elimination and Bob picked up 17.7% more. Arguably SOME Democrats wanted a Republican (Kurt) to win but many more wanted a progressive candidate like Bob Kiss as is to be expected. RCV worked beautifully in Vermont. It elected a non-Democrat / non-Republican (gave 3rd party success), it upheld majority rule (51.5% of active votes selected Kiss), and it avoided the Spoiler Effect (most voters wanted a progressive and that's what they elected in contrast to the plurality winner - a Republican.)
@@reedjasonf Actually, approval voting is more likely to get the Condorcet winner. Google “voting simulation yee” and you’ll see a voting simulation that assumes voters have perfect knowledge and vote honestly. This aren’t realistic assumptions, but they do give a us a hint at how voting systems behave. Instant runoff voting (more precise term for ranked choice voting) behaves very weirdly and approval voting is very strongly associated with electing the Condorcet winner. This is also reflected in the 2007 French presidential election in which polls were taken with different voting systems. The official winner of the runoff was Nicolas Sarkozy and he was also the instant runoff voting winner. Francois Bayrou was the Condrocet winner and the approval voting winner, but he didn’t even make the runoff.
@@Mutex50 This is all great in mathematical theory but AV devolves into bullet voting as seen by Dartmouth College. Voters quickly see that they hurt their favorite candidates choices by supporting a second, third, etc. candidate. AV proponents say this doesn't happen in the face of the fact that Dartmouth averaged 1.2 votes per ballot. This isn't an isolated incident. AV turns into bullet voting when races become even the slightest bit competitive. AV doesn't come with the civility seen in RCV either. Candidates actively tell voters to bullet vote in AV systems. Whereas under RCV candidates have an incentive to ask for 2nd or 3rd preference votes from voters.
Problem with approval voting is that people will quickly realize that only approving their top preference increases the likelihood that their person wins / works against allowing any other option to win. It allows people to be more stubborn.
Judging from your other comment you seem to think that the Republicans put the Progressive ahead of the Democrat. They didn't. They preferred the Democrat. The problem is that their second choice didn't matter because the Republican who had no chance made it into the final round. If the Republican had been eliminated first, the Democrat would have gone up against the Progressive in the final round won. The point is that order of elimination is important and with RCV, it isn't done by merit. Putting your favorite first can cause your least favorite to win.
@@Mutex50 yeah, RCV suffers from the center-squeeze effect, which happened to the Democrats in that race, which can create more polarizing results even if they are more ideal for some voters, it might be less ideal to more voters.
OK, but how will party list voting work with an office that only holds a *single* candidate? Will we construct a Frankenstein President that consists of the head of Bernie, the legs of Hillary, the torso of Jill Stein, and Trump's hair? :P
@@robertjenkins6132 do what every presidential government does and have a main election, and a follow up if one candidate doesnt get over 50%. Its what every other country does
You cannot sum Approval and Plurality ballots together without violating one person one vote. The whole NPV subject is fraught with problems regardless.
I used to do this with my brothers when we were 5 years old and needed to pick what movie we would watch that Sunday. This style of voting belongs and should stay with 5 years olds. Grown ups should just vote.
The Democratic-Republican duopoly should stay with 5 year olds. Grown ups, who recognize the failings of FPTP, need more sophisticated voting systems to allow 3rd parties to thrive.
Ranked Pairs Voting (NOT R.C.V.) or other Condorcet voting systems are the way to go for electing single candidates. As for parliaments, (no district) party list elections with no small party limits and were the party has let's say 20 representatives who in the parliament vote internally and then translate the internal vote into one party vote with the strength of the votes the party got in the election. for example if a party got 654.691 votes and it has 20 representatives were 11 of them agree to something then the party will cast 654.691 votes in the parliament or congress for that issue. it is a party centered system not an individual centered one and off course it is a multiparty one where the first 30 parties enter in the parliament cuz 20 x 30 is 600 representatives !
OK, after replying to a bunch of comments, I just have to say how much I hate calling it "rank choice voting." There are many ranking methods. It would be better to call it by its original name which is "instant runoff voting."
Yes, instant runoff voting is a specific version of ranked choice voting but people use them interchangeably. To clarify this distinction, I like to use “ranked preferential” for the umbrella term.
Agreed. Borda Count and the Single Transferable Vote are also ranked choice methods.
You can thank FairVote for deliberately muddying the waters here with the nomenclature.
Huh. Center for Election Science?
Why don't we hear about this more?
Because breaking through media walls costs a lot and the old parties are dedicated to using the broken system that supports them.
Because FPTP is working out well for the corporate establishment, not for the majority of Americans.
The first requirement is to accept there's a problem, second that we're lied to, third who is lying, fourth why they are lying, fifth to realize there's an alternative at all, sixth to take person responsibility to investigate on ones own, and seventh have confidence in the power of truth over fear of peer approval.
I am all for approval voting, but I don't think Aaron did a good job explaining it. The problem with rank choice voting is that order of elimination is very important and it isn't done based on merit. It is risky voting for your favorite because you have to be certain he can win the final round against the guy you hate. If he can't, voting for him can help eliminate someone who can beat the guy you hate in the final round.
The thing I like about approval voting is that it is easy to organize voting blocs around issues. If you only care about legalizing pot, but vote for all the candidates endorsed by the "citizens for legalizing pot." You don't have to worry which one is more electable.
Agree that Aaron didn't explain things as well as he could have but for a different reason. Right at the end he states that for states in a national popular vote that don't use the same system, a traditional state election votes can be summed into the other approval voted states. I don't think that's the case. I would think there would be a voting dilution effect against the candidates running in that traditional state. The dominant candidate (winner) in that state may fair well in the national accounting but everyone else would not.
You seem very knowledgeable about the various types of voting systems, but I am really struggling with the basics. I mean, I don't see how X won because Y got eliminated in the first round, but it wouldn't have mattered if Z got eliminated instead, because... I can't even articulate what I don't understand, smh. Do you know where I can get a good grounding in the various systems, preferably with animation (I saw one with post-its on ranked choice, I think, and it made sense at the time)? Learning disabilities stink! Thanks for any advice you have!
@@kayehenry3737 another name for "rank choice voting" is Instant runoff voting. If you do a youtube search for "IRV favorite betrayal", the video by the Center for Election Science that demonstrates what I'm talking about.
I don't have a video talking about the different voting systems, but there is a good website that compares them in simulations. If you want to see it, google "yee graph voting simulation".
@@Mutex50 - Thank you very much! These are great leads! Just what I need to be able to follow the subtleties of this topic. Thanks again!
we have used ranked choice in Australia, and this very very rarely comes up as an issue, mainly because we think more in terms of electing a candidate, than blocking a candidate... Winners in ranked choice tend toward the centre, and when politicians figure this out, the winner and runner up end up being very similar even though one is typically left and one is right, from a FPTP perspective they would be unelectablly indifferent!
One of my favorite guests you’ve had. He’s quite smart and this is an interesting topic.
I wish the guest would have mentioned "score voting". Score voting is a variant of approval voting.
In score voting you give each candidate a score on a scale, say 0 to 5, similar to how you would rate a product on Amazon, for example. The candidate with the highest average rating (or highest total score) wins the election.
Whereas with approval voting you simply approve or disapprove the candidates on the ballot, which is the same as scoring the candidates on a scale of 0 or 1.
* 0 or 1.
@Geus: Yes, that's the correct way to explain approval voting. I corrected my original post.
technically approval voting is a variant of pure score voting. the range(or score) family of voting systems has a major notable benefit over the ranking family, which is that it is the entire act of ranking which creates strategic voting in the first place. however, pure score voting is actually the method with the worst strategic voting, partly since youre still indirectly ranking, which is why approval voting fares best, as it has only two blocks (ok or not ok) instead of thinking about subjective scores
Alan Ivar doesn’t approval voting have the issue of not being expressive enough since you can’t say that you like one candidate much more than another candidate you just like?
Score voting might be more accurate but the gains would come at a big price in confusion and implementation
I didn't understand what the problem with ranked choice voting was. He says there was 3 candidates, the democrat got eliminated so alot of the votes went to the the progressive so that the progressive won. What's the problem? Isn't that how the system is supposed to work? I don't get it.
He did a bad job of explaining it. The problem is that the Democrat would have beaten the Progressive head-to-head, but he got eliminated in an early round. The Democrat was the Republicans' second choice and if they hadn't put the Republican first, they would have gotten a better result.
You might think this isn't a problem because the progressive won and you got the result you wanted, but it could very easily work against us with different demographics.
You pulled a straw man on the OP, and didn't do any better job explaining the problem in this thread than the guest did in the video
@@futurestoryteller What was the straw man?
That he sees no problem with the result because it is politically advantageous to him personally
@@futurestoryteller I said **MIGHT**. I have no idea what he thinks about that, but someone could potentially think, "So, RCV helps conservatives lose? What is the problem." I wanted to address that just in case anyone thought that. It is pretty common for people to just want something that makes their side win. That is why the Republicans largely like the electoral college.
Problem with ranked choice voting, "Arrow's Impossibility Theorem"
And it's no better than Plurality. Ranked choice voting (IRV) only serves the duopoly. Your "wasted vote" no longer threatens and influences a similar party. It just transfers to the dominant party and your first rank is ignored.
It seems that his criticism of Ranked Choice Voting surrounding it's effects on conservatives is flawed. If a conservative candidate is disqualified because they got less first votes than the progressive and liberal candidates, that doesn't mean conservatives helped their guy lose, it just means there are less conservatives than either liberals OR progressives, for example 30% con, 35% lib, 35% prog. If he thinks that voting for the conservative candidate hurts that candidate, he's wrong. The goal isn't to put conservatives and liberals at equal advantage, it's to put the side with more people in power. If you have less people than the other side, you don't win. I hope David clarifies either that I'm wrong and why or that this guest is wrong and why, as I have.
The problem was more people preferred the Democrat to the Progressive, but the progressive still won. It is an example of how voting for your favorite can still hurt you. If the Republicans had put the Democrat first, the would have gotten a better result. This is a problem that can hurt progressives too, but this time it hurt Republicans.
@@Mutex50 but if Republicans put the Democrat second, then if the number of democrats and Republicans is greater than the number of progressives, the Democratic candidate wins. If the progressive still wins, the progressives and Republicans put together still weren't enough and the progressive deserves to win
@@jackv9425 That is not how it works. In the rounds, it only counts the first place votes and ignores the second place votes. The one that has the least first place votes is eliminated and his votes go to the next candidate. The Democrats favored the Progressive over the Republican, so the Progressive won, but If the Democrat faced off with the Progressive, the Democrat would have won because the Republicans favored the Democrat over the Progressive.
The Progressive would have beaten both the Democrat and the Republican head to head, but he never had the chance to go head to head with any of them because he was eliminated in an early round. The problem is the order of elimination.
@@jackv9425 No, the democrat candidate was eliminated during the first round, therefore the votes went to the progressive candidate and they won. The point he's making is that republican voters would have had a better outcome in the elections (i.e. the victory of the democrat candidate instead of the progressive one) if the republican candidate was eliminated in the first round, thus making the democrat one gain their votes and win the election.
I believe the ranked choice voting system is still preferrable to the approval one, because the latter always favors the most centrist candidate.
@@Mutex50 but the first votes for the Democrat don't change when the Republican is eliminated, so the conservatives 2nd votes are combined with the liberals 1st votes. The progressive also keeps his first votes. Therefore, if the progressive still wins, they had more votes than the Democrat and Republican 1st votes had combined and deserve the win. I still don't see how the system puts conservatives at a disadvantage, unless they don't rank their 2nd and 3rd choices. Please tell me if I'm missing something.
No, it is not better. I need to be able to rank, e.g., in 2016:
1) Bernie
2) Jill
3) Anyone else who is better than Hillary
4) Hillary
5) Anyone who is not Trump
Approval voting doesn't help me as much in the above situation. I want to approve Bernie and Jill but I also want to communicate that Hillary is less terrible than Trump (because of the Supreme Court) without approving her.
I see what you mean. Score Voting is similar but slightly more complex. Score Voting would have you rate each candidate on a scale. The prompt might be something like 'Please choose one of: 1 (strongly disapprove), 2, (moderately disapprove), 3 (neutral), 4 (moderately approve), 5 (strongly approve)'. The Center for Election Science likes this slightly better than Approval Voting on the dimension of utility, but somewhat less on the dimension of simplicity. This narrow difference is why they have advocated for Approval Voting.
With Approval Voting, the question you ask is simply which candidates you approve of. So you should simply ask would you approve of a Hillary presidency? Vote yes if and only if you do. You'd then be right to ask, "Approve relative to what??" And then you should decide whether it's more important to penalize Trump for being so terrible (and approve Hillary) or whether it's more important to penalize Hilary for being even more terrible than the next worst candidate than Trump is more terrible than her (and not approve Hillary).
Yes, you could just combine the two approaches and assign a percentage of your 100% vote for each candidate.
You could choose to give 100% to Bernie
or 70% to Sanders, 25% to Jill and 5% to Hillary.
@@0MVR_0 Limiting the amount you can vote still means you're making trade offs between candidates. The most important thing to preserve is independence between candidates.
@@quitetheidea5996 It's important to not forget that Approval Voting works with existing voting machines. That's a massively lower barrier to entry for AV when it comes down to approving the reform.
I congratulate you on successfully saying nothing. You are well on the way to passively adopting my idea.
I like ranked voting which i see as giving more candidates the opportunity to air their views and concerns, and for us to do serious research to learn about many candidates rather than the top presented media moguls.
Approval Voting is better and simpler. www.electionscience.org/library/approval-voting-versus-irv/
Here's what I don't want, somebody telling me how we as a people will never change or improve in any way.
i prefer the old.........tried and true method ......of killing the leader......and taking the crown.
This feels appropriate here. ruclips.net/video/Fp32TigGfZk/видео.html
@@alwayschanging5821 ....love it.......this one is really sick....ENJOY....ruclips.net/video/r_9wbKD0sEE/видео.html
Ok so the main argument against RCV is apparently that it can lead to the most widely acceptable candidate not winning. So how common would this be. 20% of elections? 2%? 0.02%?
Approval voting seems to me to be quite a ridiculous notion. Ultimately, you have to pick someone. Just saying "who do you like?" would lead to candidates saying nothing just to try to get approval. This is the exact opposite of what we should want.
Ranked-choice never leads to the most widely acceptable candidate not winning, that is the reason for using it. People get upset when the plurality winner comes in second, despite getting the most first-place votes. They're nothing but sore losers. That situation is precisely RCV working as intended. The most popular candidate was elected.
@@wvu05 : no, approval voting encourages broad appeal. So, it'd encourage candidates to say and do things that appeal to the majority, and it'd help avoid extremist candidates winning.
@@prestonage : the Vermont election negates your claim.
@@PoochieCollins No, approval voting encourages mushy candidates who say nothing. Ultimately, there has to be a mandate for the winner.
Every alternate vote is better than using a popular vote. Any of the flaws of a voting system are the flaws inherent in democracy itself. They are necessary flaws, and better than minority rule.
The bus to Abilene paradox is the idea that people can vote for a candidate that they don’t really like but they vote for that choice because they thought everybody would. But it’s necessary for people to be able to choose a candidate that nobody wants,
For the group to make a mistake and pick not their first choice or top choice when you do majority polls on the candidates. That’s a necessary flaw.
And more than one run off or a primary for example changes the election entirely. And single run off single transferable would be different than single run off ranked choice.
When the population is large the ranked choice vote and approval vote are about the same or equivalent.
The simplest way to put it is the popular vote has the spoiler effect, the lesser of two evils cycle which deterministically enforces two parties who eventually become fringe or not representative of the largest plurality or even the majority, and so also we see minority rule as an outcome. Who would thought right - we’ve been telling ourselves this whole time that the popular vote was democracy or enabled representative government, but the Princeton study for example has proven through data analysis that the government is largely plutocratic in the Us. The will of the people is mostly ignored. The elections are a facade of democracy or choice as George Carlin said.
Alternate votes as a sampling method- because not everybody is going to vote especially in the US where over 100 million don’t vote, the alternate vote whether it be single transferable, ranked choice, or approval vote - these do NOT have the spoiler effect,
They do NOT tend to lesser of two evils thereby enabling many parties who all win and have power.
But all vote systems have what was called the arrows impossibility theorem which is really a bad way to frame in my opinion. Instead of impossibility these are necessary flaws inherent in polling and voting methods as well as the strange things that can happen when you aggregate voting populations...
Hey David, don't diss Lex! He got to be president before!
A process instead of instant run off could be devised to maximize for all ranks relatively effectively scoring thing ranks.
Hey guys, let's split hairs over all the voting systems that no one in government will ever let us have...
It worked in Maine. Baby steps.
www.vox.com/platform/amp/future-perfect/2018/11/15/18092206/midterm-elections-vote-fargo-approval-voting-ranked-choice
Better than our current system but not ranked
try Ranked Pairs Voting (NOT R.C.V.) or other Condorcet voting systems ! better than approval voting and ranked choice voting but more complex to count !!!
2020 Dem primaries should be a good example case, with a diversity of policy views and splitting. I'm pretty sure few preferred Biden and even fewer would have ranked him second.
Ranked and Approval likely would have had different outcomes, but I believe Ranked Choice would have been most satisfying for the majority.
Ranked choice? I know the concept, but as "preferential voting" (could be only called that way in Commonwealth countries maybe).
Approval voting seems like it would over represent more radical parties.
Say we have a far right party, a centrist, and a socialist party. Now I'm a center left in my politics. I'd prefer the liberal party to win but the socialist party would be acceptable to me. So I check two boxes along with many people like me because we really don't want the far right party to win. But a small group of radical left voters check only one box for the socialists. End result is the socialists win even though most voters prefer the centrist party.
It seems like this sort of system would encourage more negative campaigns as making people think "anyone but X" will be beneficial to the more radical parties on the other wing. It's very beneficial to radical parties to create fear (even moreso than it is now) and could win them elections.
So this sounds good in theory but I can definitely see how radical groups can game this for their own benefit.
In the scenario you describe, why not concede the point that more people want something to the left of what you want?
You may be forgetting about centrists who will only vote for the centrist party. As well as center-right voters who will vote for both the centrist and the far-right candidates.
@@JayQuigleyPlayQuickly forget about left/right. The scenario would just as easily go the other way where a far right party takes power and you'd have to concede that more people want the far right party, but the reality is that for many people on the left the centre right party is more acceptable.
The problem with this kind of voting scheme is that you aren't accurately quantifying exactly how much people would be dissatisfied with every result. I would be somewhat dissatisfied if a center right candidate won, but I would be extremely dissatisfied if a far right candidate won. I would be very satisfied of the center left candidate won, and somewhat satisfied it's the far left candidate won.
Which boxes should I check? Well the obvious answer is the center left and far left. Then the results come in and out turns out the far right candidate won. Shit... if I had have known the far right candidate had a chance, I would have checked off the center right candidate because I would have preferred that result over the far right candidate. I guess I voted the wrong way.
So next election I check off the center right candidate as well as the left wing candidates. The center right candidate wins. Well at least the far right candidate didn't get in this time. But then I discover that had I not checked off the center right candidate then the center left candidate would have won. Once again I voted the wrong way.
This kind of system creates a hell of a lot of game theory. It only works if we assume no one is going to try to exploit this game theory for their own game. I don't think that's a safe assumption.
You might say that I shouldn't be thinking of voting strategically, but that just means that is be conceding the election to those that do vote strategically.
The only way this system tells the optimal result is if everyone is good and never try to game the system. Stems that rely on people being good don't tend to work out well.
Mixed member proportional (MMP) is the best voting system
It's still proportional representation, so it doesn't work in single winner elections like Approval Voting or Ranked Choice Voting.
MMP is proportional, which is great, but you can also create proportional systems with Approval and Score voting as long as there's a system of apportionment. Check out Proportional Approval Voting, or RRV: www.rangevoting.org/RRV.html
LoLz, single winner is a terrible system.
Felix Sargent David needs to consider score voting
nah mmp still uses ftfp so it's trash
...OK, how was that choice problem bad? The whole point of ranked voting is to have many "run-off" elections in a row. Assuming your voting for your own interest. If just the progressive candidate and the conservative had been the only candidates the progressive still would have one regardless of the voting system.
The whole voting for the democratic candidate to help yours win is silly, cause there is no guarantee that those that voted for your progressive candidate would have voted republican.
OK, say there is 100 voters from the 3 candidates, lets say 40 go to republican, 35 go to the progressive, and 25 go to the democrat. Under normal 1st past the post the republican wins, but with the ranking system, the democrats votes get distributed. If it splits between the two evenly, republicans still with at about 52 to 48 but since the democrats have more in common with the progressives lets say they get most of it. Now it would be a progressive victory at 55 to 45.
Now this suggestion of ranking the democrat is dumb lets set up our election again with our 40 republicans and a fourth of them try to be clever with the system so 10 end up with democrat as first pick; we end up with 35-d,35-p, and 30-r. OOPS surprise surprise now the republican is in last and that means they are off the board. Now its just between the split 30 votes. Lets say a 20 to ten split and we end up with a a score of 55 to 45 again, with progressive victory.
Voting against your own candidate does not help. No matter the numbers, if you take your 1st vote to try to go against the other candidate. You are giving your own candidate a -1 against the one you are voting for.
Even if you did finagle it to you managed to calculate out how many people need to vote so that r is sill ahead but the d is ahead of p, there is no guarantee that the progressives would put there 2nd as the republicans.
..although, if you could (somehow) manage to get juuuust enough r voters to put d 1st to beat out p AND the p vote was exactly half for one and half the other THEN you could pull out a victory.
BUT that is only assuming the p vote is half and half AND you know just how many votes there are to put over the democrat over the progressive. You would have know exactly how many people were voting and what they were voting for and coordinate x number of people to vote against there own party. And hope that the progressives side more to you then the democrats. And assuming the numbers are even close.
At that point though, your not really looking to have a fair election at this point huh?
EDIT: I think the approval voting system would work pretty well too
no, it's worse. The point... with RCV you vote for every person in order of preference... if you approve of everyone, however, your preference is ignored.
The preferences don't translate into accurate representation though. Voting for your favorite can help you least favorite win. The order of elimination is important and it is not done based on merit with RCV.
With approval voting, you can effectively form voting blocs around issues and force politicians to pay attention to those issues get the votes. If the only thing you care about is legalizing pot, then you can just vote for all the candidates who are endorsed by "Citizens for Legalizing Pot." If you also care about net neutrality, you can vote for all the candidates mutually endorsed by "Citizens for Legalizing Pot" and "Citizens for Net Neutrality." Citizens can make effective votes without worrying about elect-ability.
@@Spazster50 but approval voting can also lead to sabotaging other candidates you may agree with to increase the odds that your favorite candidate wins.
ruclips.net/video/yhO6jfHPFQU/видео.html
This video gives examples.
So both systems have their flaws. I PERSONALLY think the flaws of RCV are less bad than those of Approval Voting.
(at least Approval voting in its base form. Score voting may have more merit)
Just assign a portion of your 100% vote for each candidate allowing the voter to choose to monopolize or distribute hence both absolute vote and rank.
In this approval voting system, it's possible that there could be more than one person with more than 50% of the vote, so then you have to choose the candidate that's highest up over the 50% mark. So again that just becomes another "first past the post" system, except you award the win to the highest majority winner, rather than the highest minority winner. With ranked choice voting, there's no guessing, someone will eventually go over the 50% mark, and only that one person will go over that mark, and nobody else. So the possible weird instances of major candidates not making it past the first cut in ranked choice voting is not likely to happen enough times to worry about. A candidate who is the overwhelming 2nd choice, but barely a 1st choice, must have something wrong with their policies, otherwise why aren't they more people's 1st choice?
Star voting is better
When you say Ranked Choice Voting, you're talking specifically about the Alternative Vote (aka Instant Runoff Voting). Borda Count is also a form of Ranked Choice Voting, where the voting is the same, but the counting is different. Single Transferable Vote is also Ranked Choice Voting.
Approval Voting is completely in line with the one person one vote principle, since every voter gives a yes or a no to every candidate.
When did markiplier become an expert on voting? Weird.
Portland just decided for Ranked Choice voting for their city governent.
That Burlington example sounds fine to me
The electoral college is not necessarily a problem. It's arguably (and was thoroughly argued) that EC balances urban vs rural interests. It's "unfair" by design.
Without EC, candidates would only focus on rich educated urban interests. Which is a realistic problem to this day.
The electoral college functions as intended -- what some call a "failure" due to differences from the popular vote is actually the exact merit of the system: it elects the candidate with majority support in the vast majority of counties and municipalities, with small, densely populated regions unable to concentrate federal power/influence. However, we can still improve it by adopting range voting, with the electors then placing their votes for whichever candidate has the highest score; all that is required for your state electors to better represent your preferences as a voter is a state constitutional amendment/referendum rather than a federal constitutional amendment.
I don't personally give a shit what it was intended for, the framers are dead, fuck what they intended things to be. They don't have to live with the nation anymore. So why should We care what they intended?
@@paultidwell8799 It's almost like you stopped reading my comment after the first half of the first sentence and then decided to spout off ignorantly.
Canadian Liberal party ran on a platform of election reform in 2015 then slapped it down immediately after being elected.
Screw all the weird shit. I'd just be freaking thrilled to make it one person one vote. No electoral college crap. And I also think the states should be required to use non-partisan outside of politics groups to make their district maps.
It may be my lack of understanding but the failure of rank choice voting he sited in Vermont seems to me like success.
More people preferred the Democrat to the Progressive, but the Progressive still won. It is an example of how voting for your favorite can help the candidate you like least to win.
No. The Democrat was clearly the most popular, and was preferred by a huge majority to both rivals.
@spaceLem : how is RCV better than FPTP when the former adds the problem of first choice betrayal?
Using Burlington, VT is problematic. I've lived in Vermont most of my life and can tell you that a Progressive candidate (Democratic or Vermont Progressive Party) would always be preferential over a Republican. Saying that a more moderate (Democrat) would have been a better choice does not fit the demographic of progressive area like Burlington. IRV did as it was designed to do in the 2009 race.
Also, the fact that a 3rd party (not Democrat not Republican) won that race goes to prove that RCV/IRV can help break up the two-party system whereas Approval Voting seeks to keep control in a two-party system. Clearly Burlington, VT seeks progressive candidates because Bob Kiss lead Andy Montroll by 5% in that election.
Bob Kiss only lead Andy Montrol by 5% when the vote was split with other candidates in the first round. Under that logic, the Republican Kurt Wright lead Bob Kiss by 4%. In an actual head to head match up, the rankings show that Andy Montrol would have beaten Bob Kiss 4067 to 3477 (53.9% to 46.1%).
@@Mutex50 What you are describing is the condorcet winner. Approval Voting does not select the condorcet winner. RCV actually does select condorcet quite often. It isn't guaranteed with RCV or AV.
What I am saying is that Burlington VT clearly wanted a progressive. A progressive won. Bob Kiss had more support when Andy Montroll was eliminated.
Kurt picked up another 11.2% in the final round elimination and Bob picked up 17.7% more. Arguably SOME Democrats wanted a Republican (Kurt) to win but many more wanted a progressive candidate like Bob Kiss as is to be expected.
RCV worked beautifully in Vermont. It elected a non-Democrat / non-Republican (gave 3rd party success), it upheld majority rule (51.5% of active votes selected Kiss), and it avoided the Spoiler Effect (most voters wanted a progressive and that's what they elected in contrast to the plurality winner - a Republican.)
@@reedjasonf Actually, approval voting is more likely to get the Condorcet winner. Google “voting simulation yee” and you’ll see a voting simulation that assumes voters have perfect knowledge and vote honestly. This aren’t realistic assumptions, but they do give a us a hint at how voting systems behave. Instant runoff voting (more precise term for ranked choice voting) behaves very weirdly and approval voting is very strongly associated with electing the Condorcet winner.
This is also reflected in the 2007 French presidential election in which polls were taken with different voting systems. The official winner of the runoff was Nicolas Sarkozy and he was also the instant runoff voting winner. Francois Bayrou was the Condrocet winner and the approval voting winner, but he didn’t even make the runoff.
@@Mutex50 This is all great in mathematical theory but AV devolves into bullet voting as seen by Dartmouth College. Voters quickly see that they hurt their favorite candidates choices by supporting a second, third, etc. candidate. AV proponents say this doesn't happen in the face of the fact that Dartmouth averaged 1.2 votes per ballot. This isn't an isolated incident. AV turns into bullet voting when races become even the slightest bit competitive.
AV doesn't come with the civility seen in RCV either. Candidates actively tell voters to bullet vote in AV systems. Whereas under RCV candidates have an incentive to ask for 2nd or 3rd preference votes from voters.
Problem with approval voting is that people will quickly realize that only approving their top preference increases the likelihood that their person wins / works against allowing any other option to win. It allows people to be more stubborn.
You can organize voting blocks around issues. You can't do that with rank choice voting because order of elimination matters.
Sounds like the people in Vermont should do more research rather than being so tribal.
Judging from your other comment you seem to think that the Republicans put the Progressive ahead of the Democrat. They didn't. They preferred the Democrat. The problem is that their second choice didn't matter because the Republican who had no chance made it into the final round. If the Republican had been eliminated first, the Democrat would have gone up against the Progressive in the final round won.
The point is that order of elimination is important and with RCV, it isn't done by merit. Putting your favorite first can cause your least favorite to win.
@@Mutex50 yeah, RCV suffers from the center-squeeze effect, which happened to the Democrats in that race, which can create more polarizing results even if they are more ideal for some voters, it might be less ideal to more voters.
Mixed Member Party list voting is the most Democratic form of voting. Ranked choice can be extremely convoluted.
OK, but how will party list voting work with an office that only holds a *single* candidate? Will we construct a Frankenstein President that consists of the head of Bernie, the legs of Hillary, the torso of Jill Stein, and Trump's hair? :P
@@robertjenkins6132 do what every presidential government does and have a main election, and a follow up if one candidate doesnt get over 50%. Its what every other country does
Just rate things you know, like Amazon.
Yes that's Score Voting. Approval Voting is effectively Score Voting on a 0-1 scale. Simple because it doesn't require new ballots.
You cannot sum Approval and Plurality ballots together without violating one person one vote. The whole NPV subject is fraught with problems regardless.
First?
This is a terrible method, wtf.
@@ClayShentrup thanks
I used to do this with my brothers when we were 5 years old and needed to pick what movie we would watch that Sunday. This style of voting belongs and should stay with 5 years olds. Grown ups should just vote.
Fee_ Lo can you elaborate on why it’s bad?
The Democratic-Republican duopoly should stay with 5 year olds. Grown ups, who recognize the failings of FPTP, need more sophisticated voting systems to allow 3rd parties to thrive.
Short answer: no, it isn't.
Ranked Pairs Voting (NOT R.C.V.) or other Condorcet voting systems are the way to go for electing single candidates. As for parliaments, (no district) party list elections with no small party limits and were the party has let's say 20 representatives who in the parliament vote internally and then translate the internal vote into one party vote with the strength of the votes the party got in the election. for example if a party got 654.691 votes and it has 20 representatives were 11 of them agree to something then the party will cast 654.691 votes in the parliament or congress for that issue. it is a party centered system not an individual centered one and off course it is a multiparty one where the first 30 parties enter in the parliament cuz 20 x 30 is 600 representatives !
Progressives - staying up all night trying to figure out how to game the system.
He literally made an argument against a voting system because it elected a progressive by "unfair" means (in his opinion), genius