it would be nice if if no one voted, government actually disappeared. But alas, even if 3 people vote, and one party gets a majority, government will still exist. A shame.
+Daniel Walton Support Bernie Sanders, he is the most liberal democrat and is trying to change the unfair system from within. I haven't heard him say he wants alternative vote, but if you start a campaign for it, maybe it'll catch on and Bernie will take you up on the offer :)
It is essentially a given that Clinton will win the nomination. There have been spoilers before, but none of them have won and it has not changed the system. If Sanders runs as an independent he will just steal votes from Clinton and ensure Trump gets in office. Besides that nothing will change. Besides, my primary is over, I have no more say until the general.
Australia's system is slightly different. It's hard to explain, except the votes from the last candidate don't go all to just one, they are given to the people who voted So say there are 6 parties, Liberal, Labor and Nationals, One Nation, Greens and CA Liberal: 40% Labor: 30% Nationals: 23% One Nation: 5% Greens: 2% So the Greens are kicked out Say that 1% of the Greens voters had Labor as their next pick Labor is now on 31% and the other 1% go to the nationals They're now on 24% So next One Nation. 3% of their votes go to liberal, giving them 43% 2% go to the nationals, giving them 26% of the vote We now eliminate Nationals In this weird universe, 21% of their votes go to Labor, boosting them up to 52% of the vote Because the other 5% go to Liberal, they only managed to get 48% of the vote, meaning Labor wins Oh, and if the second party choice for someone is already out, they just go down to their 3rd choice and so on
I think its passed now but will only be used for elections in the house of commons and for lead speaker. For now at least until the next election to change the way elections work due to the lack of efficiency in the current election method, great isn't it...
I remember watching the BBC talking about the last british election and they interviewed a few people and one guy was like "yeah I voted for this party" and the interviewer asked "oh, what made you vote for them?" and he went "oh, i dont agree with them, but i hate the other party and dont want them incharge" and the interviewer then acted shocked like the guy had revolutionised first past the post voting
I cannot, absolutely cannot, believe us in the UK didn't vote to use AV in future. When we had the choice between AV and FPTP...the public chose to keep First Past the Post, just because they believed a damn marketing campaign by the two parties that WANT a two party system. It's the greatest failing in British democracy of the modern age to not adjust to this...
If a voter likes 3 candidates equally, but likes one particular candidate the best, who will their vote go to if that candidate is eliminated? Would each of the 3 candidates get 1/3 votes from the voter? Or will their vote just not be counted just because they were "too lazy to do proper ranking"? In this case, many lazy peoples' votes wouldn't be counted unless they voted for the winning candidates.
+Berelore One problem with AV is that after giving their first vote to the person they support it incentivises people to choose the person they dislike the least. This in turn incentivises politicians to have few strong views/policies, and instead play it safe to appeal to the most people, in the hope that if enough voters put them as 2nd or 3rd, then they will have enough to win.
+Berelore One problem with AV is that after giving their first vote to the person they support it incentivises people to choose the person they dislike the least. This in turn incentivises politicians to have few strong views/policies, and instead play it safe to appeal to the most people, in the hope that if enough voters put them as 2nd or 3rd, then they will have enough to win.
Everyone: "Wow Both Trump and Hillary suck..." Me: "Have you considered voting independent?" Everyone: "It would be a wasted vote, he/she wouldn't win" If we used this voting system we could effectively #MakeAmericaGreatAgain
+slim shady Noooooo, don't think that! If you don't live in a swing state, you should still vote for a 3rd party (in this case Jill Stein), and your vote *could* make a difference! Sure, she and Gary Johnson will not win the general election. Let's make that clear. However, there's another, yet very important goal. According to the FEC, if a candidate of any party receives at least 5% of the popular vote, that party must receive federal funding for future elections. It's a long shot to break up the 2-party system, but this is *the* year to do it as Americans hate both Trump and Clinton. Source: www.fec.gov/press/bkgnd/fund.shtml (last paragraph)
asaeampan I know. I would love to have Instant Runoff Voting. I've heard that some people in their counties have implemented it! Oh, how I wish it was on a national level...
asaeampan I would say that total reform is unlikely now, but there are things that are steps in the right direction! Take for example the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. It has been ratified by 10 states + D.C.; it states that whomever wins the popular vote of the general Presidential election, all the Electoral College votes of the states that agreed would go to the winner. It's not perfect, but it's certainly a step in the right direction! Also, before I said that some people in their counties have implemented IRV. I forgot that some of those counties included the cities of San Francisco, Minneapolis, Pierce County (Washington; includes the city of Tacoma), Takoma Park (Maryland; also allows 16 & 17 yo to vote in municipal elections), Oakland (California), Hendersonville (North Carolina), Aspen (Colorado; although they returned to a traditional runoff voting system), Memphis, Sarasota (Florida; although it has not been implemented yet), Santa Fe, and a few other places. There is hope, just not that much of it. Baby steps I guess, right?
Alternative vote also allows small parties to actually get some votes, because no one says "they won't win, so I won't vote for them". I know this is partially covered in the spoiler effect, but this is a little different.
+Andreas Petrela Paiement Maybe they think that, but it isn't true. Voting for your favorite can still hurt you. Your favorite could eliminate your second favorite. This may be a bad thing if you are not sure where your second favorite's votes may go to next. Maybe your second favorite is more of a centrist and a lot of his voters are closer to your least favorite than your first favorite.
+Mutex50 I'm slightly confused about this. Surely it only matters how everyone voting for your #2 is voting for their #2s is voting in the situation where your #2 doesn't win either. And in this situation, your #2 wouldn't have won even more so if they weren't your #2, in which case the people voting for your #2 would still distribute their votes to their #2s in the same way as if you had voted it as your #2. Therefore if it loses when you put it as your #2 then it loses however your vote, and people's votes are still redistributed in exactly the same manner. You don't affect the voting, all you do is make your #2 less likely to win, no?
Smokestacks Let's say that Tiger is more of an extremist than Leopard. Leopard can attract the moderate voters (perhaps the former owl voters) that would waffle between her and Gorilla. If Tiger can win over the base and get more votes than Leopard, Leopard would be eliminated and the moderate voters who supported her would now go to Gorilla as their next choice. So, we have a situation in which all of Tigers voters would go to Leopard if he were eliminated, but a good portion of Leopards voters would go to Gorilla if she were eliminated. So, if you are a Tiger supporter, you have to worry about whether Tiger can beat Gorilla once Leopard is eliminated. You are putting a moderate against an extremist head to head.
Question 5 on the ballot of my state (Maine, USA) is to implement the Alternative Vote for all elected offices except the President. You can bet I voted Yes in a heartbeat.
Instant runoff voting isn't using fringe parties, nor is it proportional representation. Also, there is an interstate compact going around, asking states to dedicate their electoral college votes to whoever wins the popular vote. Was that up for debate in Maine?
@Hi How Are You? Why do you think it wouldn't be legal? And even if it were, if each state just changed it to be giving it to the national popular vote regardless of how many other states do the same, what kind of law or constitutional clause would prevent that?
I was thinking the same thing. So mumbly. Compared to his current videos, he sounds almost drunk in this one. It's always interesting to see how RUclipsrs improve over the years.
+Elliott Collins He speeds up the audio in his newer video, that is the only difference. You can listen to his podcast hello internet to see that this is the case.
I'm am so sick of the two party system. I want more choices than a turd sandwich or a giant douche. I know no political candidate will every completely coincide with my own opinions, but I really detest thinking about purely voting to simply keep someone else from being voted in.
@@drmadjdsadjadi ...How is this organized better than the website for the Conservative Party up here in Canada? How!? Freaking HOW!? They're an official party and their website is far worse than this one, I don't understand...
@@filipwolffs Ah of course. Makes sense. Now if only governments the world over would actually *listen* to their nerds, we might be in somewhat less dire straits.
Because it doesn't benefit the ones who have the power to change the rules. They prefer a duopoly - all they have to do is bankroll candidates from both sides and they can't lose.
IRV has most of the problems with plurality voting. There is no reason to support IRV when we have things like approval voting and better still, score voting.
Why did people vote no to AV in the UK? I can only assume it's because we're idiots who are afraid of progress. Well done electorate, I was about 11 at the time of the referendum and I understood why AV is superior.
Well it is being used in the house of commons but in my opinion there are way too many elections nowadays, elections on how to change elections, elections on when to change elections, even elections on when to have other bloody elections. It takes the piss. I think we should restore old Liz to her full throne and watch the maniacal tyrant be born, then just go with it and see what happens...
I was 18 at the time and it was the first thing I was able to vote in. I remember trying to convince people in school that it was a fairer system, but the reply I got was always something to do with not wanting to support a Lib Dem policy after they'd screwed us on tuition fees. It's nothing to do with progress, and everything to do with petty political point scoring.
The spoiler effect is absolutely horrid in Canada. The polls for our election in 2015 show that the two largest parties will be the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party, with the Conservatives winning a narrow plurality. Aside from those two, the other major party is the NDP, who sits to the left of the Liberal Party. The problem is that the NDP only takes voters from people who would vote Liberal, never from the Conservatives. This results in the left vote being split, and the Conservatives taking power.
***** Well, they do right now. The PCs have controlled the shots for years now. The only reason I have no problem with it is because I frankly prefer the PCs over the rest of the parties, so I am being represented. However, I don't like how the system basically hands them power, making them less accountable to my vote. This can lead to corruption, and potentially huge issues in the parties. Recently in Alberta we had a massive meltdown of the PCs, making everyone vote NDP. I think this is bad because the vote was not for the NDP, but rather a vote for not PC. (Given this is possibly a bias assumption being that I am more right-wing.) The reason why the PC party crumbled in the first place is because they because super corrupt and irresponsible after 44(?) unchallenged years of control. I feel like the results each year would have probably been the same under AV, (or my preference, STV) but they would have forced the PC party to actually campaign more and represent better. So yeah, I just felt the need to get that out. I wildly agree with the need for change in Canada's voting system, despite it being in my favor
rhn94 I'd be very surprised if they hold true to that. The Alternative Vote would benefit the Liberals more than anyone else, as they are the most agreeable party to everyone. Plus, the Liberals have made the same promise.
Let's be honest here, Liberals and Conservatives here in Canada are basically just two slightly different degrees of conservative. They just have misleading names.
Well the entire thing was because Washington's two best friends thought it would be a great idea to make parties despite Washington saying HELL NO!. It snowballed from there.
Aaron Neumann Except 100% of countries within the first world feature a voting sstem based on political parties, without having those problems. Humans naturally gather in groups, so it would be absrud to prohibit the forming of political parties.
Parralyzed Washington saw the parties in Parliament and said 'no thank you'. He was RIGHT in the sense that they would fuck shit up and cause problems down the road for the young republic.
Even if alternative vote is better, how could we In the US ever implement it? With the entrenched two parties against it, it can never gain the exposure in the media that would convince enough of the public for it to even come up for discussion.
He lives in Britain and when this video was made there was a referendum about changing to the alternative vote. Sadly only the people against it bothered to turn up to vote.
Alonglong Way USA has "what do you prefer to be fucked with? A broomstick of a champaign bottle?" type of democracy. Right now only few countries have democracy at it`s finest. The rest is illusion.
Man, coming back to these videos after so many years is crazy, these are like, what first started making me think about politics as a kid, they still do a great job of educating too, the one on First Past The Post voting does an excellent job of explaining what's wrong with America's current voting problem
Alternative vote system is nice for increasing the number of parties ... currently, a bit over 40% of US citizens self-identify as independent voters ~ when this becomes a true majority, an alternative vote system could be used to better represent the people ...
As I write this comment the Maine GOP is working real hard to repeal ranked choice voting in Maine. Even though it was passed in a referendum by an absolute majority of Mainers. They argue that ranked choice voting violates the "one person one vote" principle. What do you have to say to that?
Every state should have this voter rank system to avoid tribalism and actually have good politicians with a diverse set of viewpoints. Also thinking about an 8 year limit for all politicians, not just the president, so corruption nose dives to an all time low.
Well they're wrong. Every court has found it constitutional. And the idea that you only get one vote is stupid. There's no reason why you shouldn't be able to express a more nuanced preference at the ballot box. I mean we already do it with top 10 countdowns everywhere else. Besides you can only vote once for each candidate and your vote only counts one time in each round if there's an instant runoff.
We do. But here if a candidate even mentions AV their party wont nominate them and they'll lose. The DNC and the RNC are too power hungry to allow the alternative vote. It's catch 22
The main problem in US is the electoral college. Grey explained it in another video and that's how the middle-men influence the popular vote. Expanding Alternative Vote on a federal level and cutting the state voting nonsense, you give the power to the people. By not thinking about the majority votes that are the closest to become president, they can choose their favorite in the 1st place and put the one that wouldn't bother them in the 2nd place. By doing so, their vote won't be wasted on the popular candidates. But of course, politics everywhere in the world is corrupt. The old system won't be changed, because it gives power to the ones in charge of it and less power to the people. I totally agree with a libertarian system, where the state is responsible only for protection and applying law. The only thing that the state should get tax from is salaries. Let's say 10% of the annual income. But that's a discussion for another time. For now, the way people vote their president should be changed.
EnderSlayer I heard something similar about the majority vote in a democracy. If all your neighbors decide to vote to build a basket court in your house, you and your family members vote against and the rest of the neighbors vote for and they get to build the basket court in your house because their votes outnumbers your votes. The most unfortunate situation is where votes get 49 - 51 %. Because the 51% will win and 49% will have to keep their mouths shut about it, because the other candidate won by popular vote. But that's just stupid, shutting off almost half the population. The electoral college worked long time ago, but now it is just abused to the point where people can candidate and plan their campaign and win without popular votes (because they target the states with more voting power). Electoral college was created with good will, but now it is just abused to the point where it doesn't serve its initial purpose. Look at other GCP Grey's videos about voting systems, you'll get what I mean.
+Griffin Eckstein Bernie Sanders is the most or 2nd most popular Democratic candidate as far as I know. It would be absurd to list him so low. In addition, the voting system for electoral candidates in the US is not the same as voting for president- it's only a 2 party choice for that election. If you're interested about the election of the US party's leader, you should check out CGP Gray's video explaining the absurd electoral college system.
+Smooooth That's because a country-wide switch at this point is too cost prohibitive. And as a country who's already upwards of $17 trillion in debt, there isn't any kind of surplus in the budget for that.
Yes, but who would be in charge of changing the system? The US government? The government consists almost entirely of republicans and democrats, neither of which have an incentive to lower their representation in said government.
So people know, this actually is getting some traction in the U.S. The entire state of Maine has adopted it and is even using it for federal elections such as the president. There are also several cities that use it throughout the country. If you're a fan of it, there's probably a local organization campaigning for it that you could support. I will say that this video is slightly wrong however. Alternative Vote (aka Ranked Choice Vote or Instant Runoff Vote) is susceptible to the spoiler effect. It's not immune like this video claims. But the spoiler effect is much less likely to occur. The only way for a third party to spoil an election using this voting system is if the 3rd party is more popular than the candidate who otherwise would have won, but less popular than the candidate who would have lost. Which is kind of a weird and unique situation that doesn't happen so often, but it DOES happen (google Burmingham Vermont 2009 mayoral election). Also, this voting system does have a problem that FPTP doesn't. It doesn't have monotonicity, which is a really weird fancy word but what it means is that with the Alternative Vote you can sometimes make your favorite candidate lose by saying they're your first choice candidate, when they otherwise would have won if you had rated them lower. I personally think this is a serious flaw, you shouldn't be able to cause a worse outcome by giving your candidate a higher score, but it is fairly rare. Even with these flaws, it is a MUCH better system than FPTP. If you're interested in other voting methods, my favorite method is STAR voting. Instead of just ranking candidates, you score each candidate from 0 to 5 stars. Then the two candidates with the highest score are pitted against each other in an instant runoff, similar to the Alternative Vote. Most of the problems with the Alternative Vote come from the multiple elimination rounds and not looking at everyone's preferences equally (only some people ever have their 2nd or 3rd choice looked at). STAR voting fixes that. All of your preferences are looked at and then the two most preferred candidates runoff against each other. You might ask "why not just elect the most preferred candidate?" Well, that actually is a voting system known as Score Voting or Range Voting, and it also isn't a bad method. But it has been shown to be very susceptible to strategic voting, just like the video said about FPTP. By having the runoff election at the end, STAR voting squashes the benefits of strategic voting and lets people just be honest about their preferences. Honesty is your best choice in STAR voting. It is essentially combining the Alternative Vote with Score Voting in order to get rid of the drawbacks and keep the benefits, making it a really good system.
Alternative vote is definitely better than FPTP but we still have only 2 big parties and a few minor parties of any note. Unless you're majorly into politics, its still voting for the lesser of two evils because any other vote is pretty meaningless
In a student-organization at my university we were distatisfied with our voting system for new members and I came up with something that was pretty much like this. I now feel reassured I did a good job ^^
Grey, you should consider a video about Score Voting. IRV (The Alternative Vote) is much better than FPTP, but still carries many of its problems, and does not completely eliminate the Spoiler Effect, in addition to being quite complicated. Score Voting (where you rate each candidate and choose the one with the highest average rating), on the other hand, is extremely simple and mathematically far superior to FPTP or IRV. Approval Voting (the system described in "Quick and Easy Voting for Normal People") is actually a special case of Score Voting where the scale is reduced to a binary.
Grey, I doubt you will actually read this but Maine has actually adopted this but is trying to repeal it. I think it would be awesome if you revisited the topic even just briefly in the hopes that Maine won't make the mistake of going back.
This was the video that kickstarted my interest in ranked-choice voting many years ago and it's the biggest reason I'm supporting presidential candidate Andrew Yang in the 2020 Democratic primaries. He's the only one bringing this option to light. Yang 2020!
Here's one potential issue I have with this system: Imagine we have a system with four parties: A, B, C, D, and E. Now we'll use the assumption that you appear to make in the video where everyone who votes for party A first has a list identical to their fellow A-voters, and the same for the other 4 parties' voters. Now lets look at all of the lists and how many people voted for each candidate. A, C, B, D, E 25% B, C, A, D, E 15% C, B, A, D, E 05% D, C, B, E, A 25% E, C, D, A, B 30% Now in this system, C would be the least popular candidate, getting eliminated first, and having his votes redistributed to B. A, B, D, E 25% B, A, D, E 20% D, B, E, A 25% E, D, A, B 30% Then B is eliminated and has their votes given to A. A, D, E 45% D, E, A 25% E, D, A 30% Then D is eliminated and has his votes handed to E. A, E 45% E, A 55% E is declared winner under this system. The problem I have with this system is that C is clearly the best candidate, because while very few people wanted him the most, everybody approved of him. 75% preferred him over A, 85% preferred him over B, 75% preferred him over D, and 70% of the populations *wanted him more than the person who won*. If it was 1v1 with just C vs *ANY* of his competition, he would have won by a landslide. Yet, he lost because he was an appealing candidate to everyone, but he wasn't the most appealing candidate to anyone. E won, yet nearly everyone who didn't vote for him ranked him dead last or close to it and he is clearly not wanted by ANYONE but strong E supporters, and the only reason he wins is because, in D's eyes, he's a lesser evil than A. But you know who else is a lesser evil than A in D's eyes? C. In nearly everyone's eyes (except A voters, obviously). This system doesn't solve every issue with voting. C would have won a 1 on 1 election with any of these people, and he should have won, but doesn't under this system. He wouldn't have won under FPTP either, so at least Alternative Vote is still better than FPTP.
"Now in this system, C would be the least popular candidate, getting eliminated first, and having his votes redistributed to B." That's not how it works, the votes would be redistributed by individual voters, not all of the people who voted for C first would vote for B second
MiauFrito That is how it works in my hypothetical situation. I literally said: "Now we'll use the assumption that you appear to make in the video where everyone who votes for party A first has a list identical to their fellow A-voters, and the same for the other 4 parties' voters." My point that "70% of the populations wanted him more than the person who won" still stands. Making things more complicated by tracking every single individual voter needlessly makes it more difficult to get my point across without actually improving the argument.
@@eyescreamcake that's what happens in FPTP. In AV you can rank your favorite 1st, then safe choice 2nd. If your 1st choice is a 3rd party and gets few votes, your vote will not be wasted and will be transferred to your next choice. This is exactly what AV eliminates. There is a different spoiler effect but it's not this.
Alternative voting is better than First Past the Post, but it's worst than many other possible systems. There are many ways in which alternative voting produces pathological results, such as: voting for someone can decrease the chances they'll win. Look up Approval Voting: vote for every candidate you "approve" of, without rankings. It's a lot simpler to explain and understand, can be implemented with existing ballots and machines, and eliminates most of the problems with alternative voting, but is less well known. Spread the word!
This is a 5 year old video. My country just held a presidential election with 9 candidates. 6 of these candidates never even stood a chance and it was well known before the elections. 19% of the counted votes went to them. That means that just under a fifth of the votes were completely useless. People wasting their votes on people known to not get elected. The difference between the elected president and runner up was less than 8%. Together the two got just under 67% of the votes. The one in 3rd place then got 15% of the votes. So in my opinion, when the two front runners were obviously going to be competing against each other, voting for anyone else than those two was a wasted vote. In other words, 33% of the votes are trash. Imagine if these 33% would have to choose between the two main runners.. or if it were the Alternative Vote system. Results could've been completely different and in my opinion, more accurate.
Sadly, there are no fully fair voting systems and we cannot expect to implement one because it has been mathematically proven that the production of one with every criteria that's employed to define fairness met; however, certainly, there are better systems and first past the post is possibly one of the worst. We must get rid of it.
Greetings from 2020! In a Ballot Measure the state of Alaska in the USA has voted in favor of creating a ranked-choice voting system!! Huge win for democracy and alternative voting. Your video has been so influential over the years. Thank you for making it CPG Grey!! BTW at 2:55 in this video you mention the concept of "Condorcet Winner" and how you will do another video on this. Could you please?
Can we chance to this system in Canada??!! No, because then (18 year old girls, and women won't be able to vote for a cute guy for PM!!) (Excuse me while I go retch!)
I think a major problem facing democracy today is party politics. Having political parties just divides people into teams much like football teams. They stop thinking about the substance of the policies and support "their parties policy" instead. If we banned political parties then all politicians would be judged by their policies and character alone.that would be awesome!
Could you do a video about other voting systems like score voting? Many people will look at this and think alternative vote is the best, but it still trends towards two parties and it still has the spoiler effect where switching votes from one candidate to another can make a third candidate win.
I don't really know the answer, but from personal as an Australian (where all State and Federal lower house elections are AV), I can say this is definitely the case. The two big parties, the Coalition and Labor, have a stranglehold on all our parliaments. If I'd have to hazard a guess, I'd say it's because most voters who pick a smaller party as there first will pick one of the big parties as their second preference. For example, almost all Greens voters pick Labor as their second preference so there votes usually end up going to Labor anyway for most seats. I'm sure there's a more mathematical explanation, but that's beyond me personally.
KasabianFan44 this will be long. It's because, in the set of all the parties, there will be two parties where at least one of them has similar appeal to the voter as the voter's first choice - they offer the best compromise of ideas for the voter. This means they will get higher rankings on that voter's card than parties with ideas that are worse compromises for the voter. Once the votes are tallied, the party with the most 1st or 2nd votes I.e. The party that is either the favourite or the best compromise for voters gets the top spot, while the party with the next most 1st and 2nd votes gets the second spot. Because the voters will choose their 2nd vote as a compromise on their 1st vote, it is unlikely that the ranking of those 2 parties on a voter's ballot will change, so they'll stay close together I.e. 1st and 2nd, 4th and 5th etc. This means that those two parties get split off into pairs in the mind of the voter, which effectively reduces it to one vote. From here, the most preferred of these 2 parties gains the advantage on the other, and then the pattern that was described in the "The problem with the First Past the Post voting explained" video is applied here, go see that video for the explanation of that.
this system is still not spoiler free. Take 3 candidates, A, B, C with a preference schedule that looks like: 2 votes: C > A > B (C preferred over A and B. A preferred over B) 3 votes: A > B > C 4 votes: B > C > A By this method, in the first round, C will have 2 votes, A will have 3, B will have 4. C is eliminated, and their votes go to A (by preference schedule) In the second round, A will have 5 votes, B will have 4. B is eliminated and A is the winner. Now, if B is removed from the election cycle, the preference schedule will look like 2 votes: C > A 3 votes: A > C 4 votes: C > A Here, C has 6 votes, and A has 3. A is eliminated, and C wins. Therefore, candidate B is a spoiler for candidate C, and this method is not spoiler free!
You're right that it has spoilers. Although your example contains a Condorcet cycle. A is preferred to B by a majority, B is preferred to C by a majority, and C is preferred to A by a majority. Whoever your method say wins, you can make an example where eliminating one of the other candidates changes the winner (as long as it's majoritarian. And rank-based). But you can make an example for AV without cycles. Something that has really happened: 34%: P > D > R 29%: D > P > R 37%: R > D > P D is preferred by a majority versus _both_ R and P (no cycle). Also, R prefers D. But P wins. However, if the R>D>P voters instead voted D>R>P, voting for their lesser evil, then D wins, which is better for R. R was a spoiler for D. Basically, the fact that the R's put D 2nd was completely ignored because D was already eliminated. In practice, AV still seems to encourage two-party domination, even though delayed top-two runoffs don't. And basically every voting method behaves the same as FPTP when there are only two strong candidates. The example I gave is one of the few examples when the AV winner wasn't the same as the FPTP winner, and it still didn't give a good result. But there are other, better methods. Condorcet methods like Ranked Pairs or Schulze, or rating-based methods like Score or Approval. These even have STV-like proportional variants.
and if we hadn’t had fptp no one would’ve had to resort to tactical voting, Boris Johnson would not have got a majority, Lib Dem’s and greens would be better represented etc. It’s sickening really
The problem with is that if your first choice is popular, your second choice is irrelevant. For example .. consider the graph at 1:52. Turtle is eliminated. What if Turtle was everyone's second choice? That would make turtle the most commonly popular candidate - but with AV we just eliminated him. So then where do the second choice votes go? they are thrown out. So in order to make this work, you would have to keep all candidates in the running, and increment their votes as you go through each elimination ... until you only have one.
3:55 Why this will never be implemented in a 2 party system. In a rare twist of events, the two big parties both agree they don't want to work harder for their elections!
Depends on the country, really. Its difficult in America because our Constitution and system are put in a way that specifically resists changing voting systems. Mostly because the people writing it were afraid that if you were able to change voting systems then eventually someone would make the nation a monarchy again.
Instead of a vote, rate each candidate on a scale from -1 to 1. This solves all the problems, has excellent granularity, and produces the most desirable candidate.
I wish we could have this in my country. There's a problem though: A. Everyone is happy, except the two main parties that got into office through the old system. B. The people with the power to change the system are the ones in office making the rules. C. Those people in office are almost all from the two main parties. D. Refer to letter A.
Actually, there's a great video that explains how the alternative vote does have a delayed spoiler effect, because in the central party will eventually split their vote instead of giving it all to the new party, which is assumed in alternative vote. Personally, I prefer a point voting system- where you give all the candidates points based on how much you like them. So a voter could give turtle 10/10, leopard 3/10, Owl 5/10, Gorilla 0/10. If turtle had high favor, even if he isn't everyone's first choice, he could win so long as everyone is mediocre towards the other candidates. It also makes it much harder to steal votes from one another because if a voter wanted they could score everyone very high or very low. Even if parties try to knock people off the polls, that would potentially hurt them, and gerrymandering wouldn't be as big of an issue.
This system is excellent. It's normally called Score or Range, or Approval for the simplest version. It even has a party agnostic proportional version.
I thought it was fun seeing how the animals organise their elections. And it was funny that Wallaby told them how to do it and he doesn't even live there.
CGP Grey: You really need to take this video down. IRV has the spoiler effect (aka. the centre squeeze effect) and all of the other problems that Single-choice voting systems do (this is because, basically, it's a Single-choice system disguised as a Ranked system), so this video is just contributing to the continuing con-artistry of getting us to switch from Single-choice to IRV and back again. Both are broken. Both are part of the same con-trick. The only systems that can work are based on Score voting (e.g. Approval Voting, STAR voting, Re-Weighted Score voting, etc) as you've covered in your other videos. PLEASE seriously consider taking this video down for the reasons above. Single-choice and IRV are actively harming democracy by causing the same problems as each other (e.g. creating two large-scale parties that shut out all of the others), and also by stopping Score voting systems from being implemented for fundamentally dodgy reasons. We are NEVER going to achieve a well functioning politically-representative world while Single-choice and IRV are allowed to be implemented for multi-party elections, but we CAN achieve this with Score voting systems.
Ranked Choice Voting is on the ballot in Massachusetts and Alaska in the 2020 general election. If you know anyone voting in those states, send them this video!
Another thing that RCV and Approval Voting provide over Plurality (or FPTP) Voting, and this has been the experience of the few cities in the U.S. that have implemented this, is a significant drop in negative campaigning. Since you're no longer just trying to appeal to your base and, at best, grow your base and are instead trying to get everyone else's base to rank you as #2, you have to be more, well, stately and appreciative of the people who might not rank you #1!
I think the best kind of election is like the one in the papal conclave. Candidates are set up and the people vote until one gets a two thirds majority. One balloting per day to make it not tiring.
Um idk how big/small your country is, but it takes hours for one vote to be cast. So doing it everyday outside of a very small populus wouldn't such a good idea & would be tiring.
Lol This is what happens in Eurovion xD Even when exist the "Neighbourning vote" and the friend countries give 8, 10 and 12 points to each other, only the best music win, because this music get the 7 points from their all. :)
+Rúben Luso Good point. Everyone complains about neighbour voting ruining Eurovision, but if that was the case, wouldn't we have the same winner every year? Some are obviously at an advantage, but all in all, almost all the countries have to agree on the winner :)
I even think that, nowadays, the "hater vote" like btw Armenia and Azerbaijan it's even more obvious, comparing to the "neighbourn vote" like btw Cyprus and Greece.
@@eyescreamcake sure it is! since you have multiple choices, your vote will go down the list until it finds one of the frontrunners in the race. However, approval and STAR are intriguing and I would like to learn more about them
Do a video on STAR voting! It’s better than instant runoff voting (the alternative vote) because people’s votes count more equally. Take Burlington, Vermont’s 2009 mayoral election as an example. The results weren’t truly representative of the population. Under STAR voting, the problem they faced where the fact that second votes didn’t count as much swayed the results to a non-representative candidate is eliminated. STAR (Score Then Automatic Runoff) voting has two steps. First, you give each candidate a score from zero to five. Any candidates you don’t score get a zero. A score of five is counted as five votes, a score of one is counted as one vote, etc. Second, once the scores are counted, the top two candidates have an automatic runoff. Whoever you gave a higher score gets your vote. If you scored them the same, your vote is discarded since you have no preference, and then whoever got the most votes in the runoff wins. This fixes the problems that IRV has.
You are referring to Instant run off voting. We need ballot initiatives for this in all 50 states. I believe Vermont has IRV but I am not sure of the rest of the states.
Australia does have the Alternative voting system, though not exactly as explained. It is true that we number our most wanted to least wanted candidates, therefore preferences does matter. Though the major parties have put two interesting little rules in there and I more then a little suspect, that they did this to further insure a leaning to either of the two major parties. Firstly we get two pieces of paper. You either use one or the other to vote. One is a paper to vote for either of the main parties ... Put an X HERE, or an X THERE, then your finished, done! Painless... wasn't it... Then you can here the two major parties laughing at the stupid Australians, that just gave them the majority. The other paper is a long list of minor and independent parties, along with the individual two major parties candidates. And draconian as it is, you must fill in every box, or your vote does not count. If even one box is left unnumbered or unreadable, then your vote does not count. There is mostly between 50 to 60 of these boxes, to number. So obviously most people do unfortunately go for the quicker and easier option and fill out the major party paper and be done with it. Like picking the government that you want to rule you for another 4 years is just not worth another 10 to 15 minutes, out of your busy lifestyle. Also the people are fooled into thinking that their vote for either of the minor candidatures, makes no difference, because either of the two major parties will get into government with a majority anyway. It does matter though, because enough minor and independent party candidates, do get into power and cause a headache to the main parties and their plans for dominance. The balance of power is often held by independents and the major parties have to sometimes make important concessions to get their bills through parliament. Like Bill form the "Koala First Party", that causes the government to cut down a lot less eucalyptus trees to get their "Road To Nowhere Bill" through the Senate. Actually it is the Senate that mostly has the most independents, that end up stopping bills going through, then in the House of Representatives. I am sure you understood the Aussie system better then I do anyway, but these two differences try and push us further towards a two party majority. Though with a sprinkling of independents in the mix, it does make for a fairer system. The United States really should have and Alternative voting system, as well. It simply is a better and fairer voting system. Lastly if you made it this far reading this comment. You Americans really need to elect Ron Paul, the next time you get a chance. He is your only chance to save the US from falling, just like every other empire in history.
The Philippines will have its presidential election come May 2022 and there are over 5 candidates, including a late dictator's son who's very popular... and now I wonder how a ranking system would drastically affect who would win.
AV works for each seat in isolation, but when those seats need to be collated into governments (where the legislative and executive branches are not split, e.g. the UK), a greater number of different parties with MPs results in continual coalition governments. Having coalitions as the 'norm' has some positives but, in my opinion, mostly negatives - it reduces accountability for the executive as a whole, allowing them to hide behind shady backroom coalition deals, and reduces the governability of the nation.
+SacmanXman2 no it doesn't. America could, for example, adopt STV for its House of Representatives, but not the presidency. (Incidentally, this is exactly why the very idea of a president is not a very good one, compared to a Prime Minister.)
The problem with the Alternative Vote in the United States (if it were to be passed in all states today, hypothetically speaking) is that it makes it much more likely for a candidate to not receive the required 270 electoral votes. If no candidate receives the 270 electoral votes, the House of Representatives decides the next president. What needs to happen before passing the Alternative Vote in the United States is the National Popular Vote legislature, which would effectively get rid of the electoral college and decide the president via popular vote. After that legislature passes in 270 electoral votes worth of states (currently 105 more electoral votes worth of states are needed), then we can go about passing the Alternative Vote. I suggest you lookup the National Popular Vote to see if your state has passed it yet, and if not, writing a letter to your representative to try and get it passed.
What if you apply the AV system to the Electoral college itself? So, each state would also get to order the candidates in order of preference and, if no one gets 270, the candidate with the fewer Electoral College votes is eliminated and those votes are transferred to the states' second choice candidates.
Vovix100 well that won't get rid of the problems that come with the electoral college. The electoral college means that some votes count more than others
I desperately need this in America, I hate strategic voting for the lesser of the two evils.
+Daniel Walton just don't.
your vote doesn't really make an impact anyway.
I wish we had Alternative, it would give the 2 parties a real push to actually accomplish something, not just to slander the other side.
it would be nice if if no one voted, government actually disappeared. But alas, even if 3 people vote, and one party gets a majority, government will still exist.
A shame.
+Daniel Walton Support Bernie Sanders, he is the most liberal democrat and is trying to change the unfair system from within. I haven't heard him say he wants alternative vote, but if you start a campaign for it, maybe it'll catch on and Bernie will take you up on the offer :)
It is essentially a given that Clinton will win the nomination. There have been spoilers before, but none of them have won and it has not changed the system. If Sanders runs as an independent he will just steal votes from Clinton and ensure Trump gets in office. Besides that nothing will change. Besides, my primary is over, I have no more say until the general.
This is how we vote here in Australia. I do like how it's a Wallaby that gives the clever idea ^_^
Guess I'm moving to Austra- wait...there are like loads of killer spiders there. Guess not.
Thomas Allister We don't have as many as you think we do. We just like trolling foreigners.
Thomas Allister Psh, just vote for the Spiders when elections roll around. If they win a seat or two, they'll thank you and NOT bite you!
TheBobBrom And that's why Perth is the most isolated city on Earth.
Thomas Allister And Great white sharks, poisonous snakes, crocodiles, box jellyfish...
I'd vote for Queen Lion. She seems to always know what's up.
Smart decision
Abolish all lions. Those fuckers have had it too good for too long.
@@hansabrams1258 I like tiger too. Especially that cool white lion in later videos
MONARCHY FOR THE WIN
@@paul_chandler3082 there is a republican in this section. And that is not me. But yeah, monarch ftw
Like that a wallaby was the one to suggest Alternative Vote.. little nod to Australia's preferential voting system.
KingJaredoftheLand Australia ftw. Doesn't help though, still can't remember who our current prime minister is. Or who was before them.
To be fair we've had a few in the past 8 years
@@tacosmexicanstyle7846 Looks like we're going to have another one in a couple of weeks.
Hope this one doesn't go in the ocean
Australia's system is slightly different. It's hard to explain, except the votes from the last candidate don't go all to just one, they are given to the people who voted
So say there are 6 parties, Liberal, Labor and Nationals, One Nation, Greens and CA
Liberal: 40%
Labor: 30%
Nationals: 23%
One Nation: 5%
Greens: 2%
So the Greens are kicked out
Say that 1% of the Greens voters had Labor as their next pick
Labor is now on 31%
and the other 1% go to the nationals
They're now on 24%
So next One Nation.
3% of their votes go to liberal, giving them 43%
2% go to the nationals, giving them 26% of the vote
We now eliminate Nationals
In this weird universe, 21% of their votes go to Labor, boosting them up to 52% of the vote
Because the other 5% go to Liberal, they only managed to get 48% of the vote, meaning Labor wins
Oh, and if the second party choice for someone is already out, they just go down to their 3rd choice and so on
In the UK there was a referendum about the alternative vote, sadly only the people that were against it bothered to vote
well that sucks if i was of voting age i would of voted for AV
I think its passed now but will only be used for elections in the house of commons and for lead speaker. For now at least until the next election to change the way elections work due to the lack of efficiency in the current election method, great isn't it...
Ethan Quirk Lord speaker* oops
ah the UK...lowest youth voter turnout in Europe.
just last year
I remember watching the BBC talking about the last british election and they interviewed a few people and one guy was like "yeah I voted for this party" and the interviewer asked "oh, what made you vote for them?" and he went "oh, i dont agree with them, but i hate the other party and dont want them incharge" and the interviewer then acted shocked like the guy had revolutionised first past the post voting
I cannot, absolutely cannot, believe us in the UK didn't vote to use AV in future.
When we had the choice between AV and FPTP...the public chose to keep First Past the Post, just because they believed a damn marketing campaign by the two parties that WANT a two party system.
It's the greatest failing in British democracy of the modern age to not adjust to this...
If a voter likes 3 candidates equally, but likes one particular candidate the best, who will their vote go to if that candidate is eliminated? Would each of the 3 candidates get 1/3 votes from the voter? Or will their vote just not be counted just because they were "too lazy to do proper ranking"? In this case, many lazy peoples' votes wouldn't be counted unless they voted for the winning candidates.
It's the greatest failing in British democracy of the modern age
That didn't age well
@@Pityuu2 Why not?
@@CadetGriffin You're right
@@fellinuxvi3541 Brexit bro, Brexit
Squirrels voting for Owls? Preposterous!
lol
The system doesn't solve the problem that some voters make bad decisions and vote against their own interests.
that is fixed by ensuring that the media presents fair representation of the choices they will be making.
Riiiigghht, and they have any interest in doing that.
Well the owl only might eat you, but turtle will always bite you. Always.
Jan Fetzer yeah, i think Gorilla would've been 2nd choice for squirrels because gorillas don't hunt rodents
I wish the U.S. could adopt a system like this...
+Stephen H STV is better has all the benefits of preventing spoilers while also providing more proportional outcomes.
+Berelore One problem with AV is that after giving their first vote to the person they support it incentivises people to choose the person they dislike the least. This in turn incentivises politicians to have few strong views/policies, and instead play it safe to appeal to the most people, in the hope that if enough voters put them as 2nd or 3rd, then they will have enough to win.
+Berelore One problem with AV is that after giving their first vote to the person they support it incentivises people to choose the person they dislike the least. This in turn incentivises politicians to have few strong views/policies, and instead play it safe to appeal to the most people, in the hope that if enough voters put them as 2nd or 3rd, then they will have enough to win.
+MusketWalrus So it incentivizes politicians to choose popular opinions?
+MusketWalrus Isn't that the entire idea? To chose the middle ground instead of an extreme?
The problem is that either gorilla or leopard are always in power so they will never allow alternative vote.
Everyone: "Wow Both Trump and Hillary suck..."
Me: "Have you considered voting independent?"
Everyone: "It would be a wasted vote, he/she wouldn't win"
If we used this voting system we could effectively #MakeAmericaGreatAgain
+slim shady Noooooo, don't think that! If you don't live in a swing state, you should still vote for a 3rd party (in this case Jill Stein), and your vote *could* make a difference!
Sure, she and Gary Johnson will not win the general election. Let's make that clear. However, there's another, yet very important goal. According to the FEC, if a candidate of any party receives at least 5% of the popular vote, that party must receive federal funding for future elections.
It's a long shot to break up the 2-party system, but this is *the* year to do it as Americans hate both Trump and Clinton.
Source: www.fec.gov/press/bkgnd/fund.shtml (last paragraph)
asaeampan I know. I would love to have Instant Runoff Voting. I've heard that some people in their counties have implemented it!
Oh, how I wish it was on a national level...
asaeampan Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is in favor of Instant Runoff Voting.
asaeampan I would say that total reform is unlikely now, but there are things that are steps in the right direction!
Take for example the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. It has been ratified by 10 states + D.C.; it states that whomever wins the popular vote of the general Presidential election, all the Electoral College votes of the states that agreed would go to the winner. It's not perfect, but it's certainly a step in the right direction!
Also, before I said that some people in their counties have implemented IRV. I forgot that some of those counties included the cities of San Francisco, Minneapolis, Pierce County (Washington; includes the city of Tacoma), Takoma Park (Maryland; also allows 16 & 17 yo to vote in municipal elections), Oakland (California), Hendersonville (North Carolina), Aspen (Colorado; although they returned to a traditional runoff voting system), Memphis, Sarasota (Florida; although it has not been implemented yet), Santa Fe, and a few other places.
There is hope, just not that much of it. Baby steps I guess, right?
A waste of your vote to vote for someone you actually like, yeah sure. Voting for the lesser of 2 evils, that's wasting your vote.
Alternative vote also allows small parties to actually get some votes, because no one says "they won't win, so I won't vote for them". I know this is partially covered in the spoiler effect, but this is a little different.
+Andreas Petrela Paiement Maybe they think that, but it isn't true. Voting for your favorite can still hurt you. Your favorite could eliminate your second favorite. This may be a bad thing if you are not sure where your second favorite's votes may go to next. Maybe your second favorite is more of a centrist and a lot of his voters are closer to your least favorite than your first favorite.
+Mutex50 I'm slightly confused about this. Surely it only matters how everyone voting for your #2 is voting for their #2s is voting in the situation where your #2 doesn't win either. And in this situation, your #2 wouldn't have won even more so if they weren't your #2, in which case the people voting for your #2 would still distribute their votes to their #2s in the same way as if you had voted it as your #2. Therefore if it loses when you put it as your #2 then it loses however your vote, and people's votes are still redistributed in exactly the same manner. You don't affect the voting, all you do is make your #2 less likely to win, no?
Smokestacks
Let's say that Tiger is more of an extremist than Leopard. Leopard can attract the moderate voters (perhaps the former owl voters) that would waffle between her and Gorilla. If Tiger can win over the base and get more votes than Leopard, Leopard would be eliminated and the moderate voters who supported her would now go to Gorilla as their next choice.
So, we have a situation in which all of Tigers voters would go to Leopard if he were eliminated, but a good portion of Leopards voters would go to Gorilla if she were eliminated. So, if you are a Tiger supporter, you have to worry about whether Tiger can beat Gorilla once Leopard is eliminated. You are putting a moderate against an extremist head to head.
A V what is the difference between AV and STV?
Robbie Coombes AV elects 1 person (like a president) and STV elects multiple people
Question 5 on the ballot of my state (Maine, USA) is to implement the Alternative Vote for all elected offices except the President. You can bet I voted Yes in a heartbeat.
PR replaces the tyranny of the plurality with the tyranny of the wacco fringe party.
Instant runoff voting isn't using fringe parties, nor is it proportional representation.
Also, there is an interstate compact going around, asking states to dedicate their electoral college votes to whoever wins the popular vote. Was that up for debate in Maine?
Alex Burger-Roy And thank god we passed it, although now Brucie P is throwing a temper tantrum. Funny how that works
Lucky...
@Hi How Are You? Why do you think it wouldn't be legal?
And even if it were, if each state just changed it to be giving it to the national popular vote regardless of how many other states do the same, what kind of law or constitutional clause would prevent that?
The slurring in this video is amazing. He's gotten so much clearer.
I was thinking the same thing. So mumbly. Compared to his current videos, he sounds almost drunk in this one. It's always interesting to see how RUclipsrs improve over the years.
+Elliott Collins He speeds up the audio in his newer video, that is the only difference. You can listen to his podcast hello internet to see that this is the case.
Jakugen Yeah, but he also just enunciates more clearly now. Every RUclipsr develops "a voice" over the years.
I couldn't understand half of what he said in this video.
He's a lot better now too.
India's presidential election uses this system. And our politicians happily take advantage of this system.
In what way?
Not presidential, prime minister or the general elections electing the Members of Parliament
I'm am so sick of the two party system. I want more choices than a turd sandwich or a giant douche. I know no political candidate will every completely coincide with my own opinions, but I really detest thinking about purely voting to simply keep someone else from being voted in.
If this keeps up, eventually the elections will devolve into a choice between Cthulhu and Moloch
@@drmadjdsadjadi
...How is this organized better than the website for the Conservative Party up here in Canada? How!? Freaking HOW!?
They're an official party and their website is far worse than this one, I don't understand...
@@festethephule7553 More nerds involved.
@@filipwolffs
Ah of course. Makes sense.
Now if only governments the world over would actually *listen* to their nerds, we might be in somewhat less dire straits.
@@festethephule7553 Or at least our catastrophes would be properly organized so we can tell which disaster is going to kill us.
This is actually pretty good. Why don't we have this system?
Because it doesn't benefit the ones who have the power to change the rules. They prefer a duopoly - all they have to do is bankroll candidates from both sides and they can't lose.
damn those brown people....
IRV has most of the problems with plurality voting. There is no reason to support IRV when we have things like approval voting and better still, score voting.
In the US, the Constitution was written specifically in a way to stop voting from being changed. So its hard to make progress with anyway.
Alforbia The constitution leaves the states in charge of voting, it's one of many powers not allowed to the federal government.
Why did people vote no to AV in the UK? I can only assume it's because we're idiots who are afraid of progress. Well done electorate, I was about 11 at the time of the referendum and I understood why AV is superior.
Well it is being used in the house of commons but in my opinion there are way too many elections nowadays, elections on how to change elections, elections on when to change elections, even elections on when to have other bloody elections. It takes the piss.
I think we should restore old Liz to her full throne and watch the maniacal tyrant be born, then just go with it and see what happens...
I was 18 at the time and it was the first thing I was able to vote in. I remember trying to convince people in school that it was a fairer system, but the reply I got was always something to do with not wanting to support a Lib Dem policy after they'd screwed us on tuition fees. It's nothing to do with progress, and everything to do with petty political point scoring.
There was a very nasty negative campaign against it.
***** Christ that's some depressing propaganda...
***** .... and people buy this crap you say????
The spoiler effect is absolutely horrid in Canada. The polls for our election in 2015 show that the two largest parties will be the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party, with the Conservatives winning a narrow plurality. Aside from those two, the other major party is the NDP, who sits to the left of the Liberal Party. The problem is that the NDP only takes voters from people who would vote Liberal, never from the Conservatives. This results in the left vote being split, and the Conservatives taking power.
***** Well, they do right now. The PCs have controlled the shots for years now. The only reason I have no problem with it is because I frankly prefer the PCs over the rest of the parties, so I am being represented. However, I don't like how the system basically hands them power, making them less accountable to my vote. This can lead to corruption, and potentially huge issues in the parties.
Recently in Alberta we had a massive meltdown of the PCs, making everyone vote NDP. I think this is bad because the vote was not for the NDP, but rather a vote for not PC. (Given this is possibly a bias assumption being that I am more right-wing.) The reason why the PC party crumbled in the first place is because they because super corrupt and irresponsible after 44(?) unchallenged years of control. I feel like the results each year would have probably been the same under AV, (or my preference, STV) but they would have forced the PC party to actually campaign more and represent better.
So yeah, I just felt the need to get that out. I wildly agree with the need for change in Canada's voting system, despite it being in my favor
PlopRS NDP is gonna implement the Alternate vote if they win! And according to polls they are ahead federally! VOTE NDP!
rhn94 I'd be very surprised if they hold true to that. The Alternative Vote would benefit the Liberals more than anyone else, as they are the most agreeable party to everyone. Plus, the Liberals have made the same promise.
+PlopRS As long as Harper isn't elected back in, I'm good. I mean ideally, I'd vote the Green Party, but all that seems to do is split the votes.
Let's be honest here, Liberals and Conservatives here in Canada are basically just two slightly different degrees of conservative. They just have misleading names.
Sure wish we had this in the USA today.
It passed in Maine
Yes, please.
ring your congressman/woman
Knightmessenger
For all BUT the presidential election.
The United States citizens need to understand this. It could help cure some of our apathy.
Well the entire thing was because Washington's two best friends thought it would be a great idea to make parties despite Washington saying HELL NO!.
It snowballed from there.
Aaron Neumann Except 100% of countries within the first world feature a voting sstem based on political parties, without having those problems.
Humans naturally gather in groups, so it would be absrud to prohibit the forming of political parties.
Parralyzed
Washington saw the parties in Parliament and said 'no thank you'. He was RIGHT in the sense that they would fuck shit up and cause problems down the road for the young republic.
Aaron Neumann Only because he HAPPENED to be right, doesn't mean he was right in PRINCIPLE.
YES, and then it wouldnt be a vote of who's worse out of hilary clinton and the donald.
Even if alternative vote is better, how could we In the US ever implement it? With the entrenched two parties against it, it can never gain the exposure in the media that would convince enough of the public for it to even come up for discussion.
He lives in Britain and when this video was made there was a referendum about changing to the alternative vote. Sadly only the people against it bothered to turn up to vote.
You have a democracy there. no?))
ljuc Are you saying the UK or US has no democracy?
Alonglong Way
USA has "what do you prefer to be fucked with? A broomstick of a champaign bottle?" type of democracy. Right now only few countries have democracy at it`s finest. The rest is illusion.
Australia has it and it's a two party system mostly
Man, coming back to these videos after so many years is crazy, these are like, what first started making me think about politics as a kid, they still do a great job of educating too, the one on First Past The Post voting does an excellent job of explaining what's wrong with America's current voting problem
Alternative vote system is nice for increasing the number of parties ... currently, a bit over 40% of US citizens self-identify as independent voters ~ when this becomes a true majority, an alternative vote system could be used to better represent the people ...
As I write this comment the Maine GOP is working real hard to repeal ranked choice voting in Maine. Even though it was passed in a referendum by an absolute majority of Mainers. They argue that ranked choice voting violates the "one person one vote" principle. What do you have to say to that?
Every state should have this voter rank system to avoid tribalism and actually have good politicians with a diverse set of viewpoints. Also thinking about an 8 year limit for all politicians, not just the president, so corruption nose dives to an all time low.
Well they're wrong. Every court has found it constitutional.
And the idea that you only get one vote is stupid. There's no reason why you shouldn't be able to express a more nuanced preference at the ballot box. I mean we already do it with top 10 countdowns everywhere else. Besides you can only vote once for each candidate and your vote only counts one time in each round if there's an instant runoff.
This man truly predicted the rise of Harambe
I feel like American can be more functional if they switch to this over FPTP.
we would. forget the occupy movement, we need to get this pushed through. With it we could get better representation in government.
And dump the electoral college...
JackMasterAndrew Maine has. First of hopefully many!
America needs to watch this video
We do. But here if a candidate even mentions AV their party wont nominate them and they'll lose. The DNC and the RNC are too power hungry to allow the alternative vote. It's catch 22
let every state add it in to all state level elections until every single election except the presidential election is instant runoff
change starts from the bottom
The main problem in US is the electoral college. Grey explained it in another video and that's how the middle-men influence the popular vote. Expanding Alternative Vote on a federal level and cutting the state voting nonsense, you give the power to the people. By not thinking about the majority votes that are the closest to become president, they can choose their favorite in the 1st place and put the one that wouldn't bother them in the 2nd place. By doing so, their vote won't be wasted on the popular candidates.
But of course, politics everywhere in the world is corrupt. The old system won't be changed, because it gives power to the ones in charge of it and less power to the people. I totally agree with a libertarian system, where the state is responsible only for protection and applying law. The only thing that the state should get tax from is salaries. Let's say 10% of the annual income. But that's a discussion for another time. For now, the way people vote their president should be changed.
EnderSlayer
I heard something similar about the majority vote in a democracy. If all your neighbors decide to vote to build a basket court in your house, you and your family members vote against and the rest of the neighbors vote for and they get to build the basket court in your house because their votes outnumbers your votes.
The most unfortunate situation is where votes get 49 - 51 %. Because the 51% will win and 49% will have to keep their mouths shut about it, because the other candidate won by popular vote. But that's just stupid, shutting off almost half the population.
The electoral college worked long time ago, but now it is just abused to the point where people can candidate and plan their campaign and win without popular votes (because they target the states with more voting power). Electoral college was created with good will, but now it is just abused to the point where it doesn't serve its initial purpose.
Look at other GCP Grey's videos about voting systems, you'll get what I mean.
Turtle is the Bernie Sanders of this election.
+Griffin Eckstein
Bernie Sanders is the most or 2nd most popular Democratic candidate as far as I know. It would be absurd to list him so low.
In addition, the voting system for electoral candidates in the US is not the same as voting for president- it's only a 2 party choice for that election. If you're interested about the election of the US party's leader, you should check out CGP Gray's video explaining the absurd electoral college system.
The United States needs to adopt this system.
But we never will, because were stubborn. I mean look at how we still haven't adopted the metric system
+Smooooth That's because a country-wide switch at this point is too cost prohibitive. And as a country who's already upwards of $17 trillion in debt, there isn't any kind of surplus in the budget for that.
Ravyn Sahale Switching would save us a lot of money in the longrun
+Ravyn Sahale did you just copy and paste that comment?
Yes, but who would be in charge of changing the system? The US government? The government consists almost entirely of republicans and democrats, neither of which have an incentive to lower their representation in said government.
So people know, this actually is getting some traction in the U.S. The entire state of Maine has adopted it and is even using it for federal elections such as the president. There are also several cities that use it throughout the country. If you're a fan of it, there's probably a local organization campaigning for it that you could support.
I will say that this video is slightly wrong however. Alternative Vote (aka Ranked Choice Vote or Instant Runoff Vote) is susceptible to the spoiler effect. It's not immune like this video claims. But the spoiler effect is much less likely to occur. The only way for a third party to spoil an election using this voting system is if the 3rd party is more popular than the candidate who otherwise would have won, but less popular than the candidate who would have lost. Which is kind of a weird and unique situation that doesn't happen so often, but it DOES happen (google Burmingham Vermont 2009 mayoral election).
Also, this voting system does have a problem that FPTP doesn't. It doesn't have monotonicity, which is a really weird fancy word but what it means is that with the Alternative Vote you can sometimes make your favorite candidate lose by saying they're your first choice candidate, when they otherwise would have won if you had rated them lower. I personally think this is a serious flaw, you shouldn't be able to cause a worse outcome by giving your candidate a higher score, but it is fairly rare. Even with these flaws, it is a MUCH better system than FPTP.
If you're interested in other voting methods, my favorite method is STAR voting. Instead of just ranking candidates, you score each candidate from 0 to 5 stars. Then the two candidates with the highest score are pitted against each other in an instant runoff, similar to the Alternative Vote. Most of the problems with the Alternative Vote come from the multiple elimination rounds and not looking at everyone's preferences equally (only some people ever have their 2nd or 3rd choice looked at). STAR voting fixes that. All of your preferences are looked at and then the two most preferred candidates runoff against each other.
You might ask "why not just elect the most preferred candidate?" Well, that actually is a voting system known as Score Voting or Range Voting, and it also isn't a bad method. But it has been shown to be very susceptible to strategic voting, just like the video said about FPTP. By having the runoff election at the end, STAR voting squashes the benefits of strategic voting and lets people just be honest about their preferences. Honesty is your best choice in STAR voting. It is essentially combining the Alternative Vote with Score Voting in order to get rid of the drawbacks and keep the benefits, making it a really good system.
Alternative vote is definitely better than FPTP but we still have only 2 big parties and a few minor parties of any note. Unless you're majorly into politics, its still voting for the lesser of two evils because any other vote is pretty meaningless
In a student-organization at my university we were distatisfied with our voting system for new members and I came up with something that was pretty much like this. I now feel reassured I did a good job ^^
10 years later NYC adopts this voting system.
Grey, you should consider a video about Score Voting. IRV (The Alternative Vote) is much better than FPTP, but still carries many of its problems, and does not completely eliminate the Spoiler Effect, in addition to being quite complicated. Score Voting (where you rate each candidate and choose the one with the highest average rating), on the other hand, is extremely simple and mathematically far superior to FPTP or IRV. Approval Voting (the system described in "Quick and Easy Voting for Normal People") is actually a special case of Score Voting where the scale is reduced to a binary.
We *voted against* this in the UK a few years ago. It's so ironic.
Grey, I doubt you will actually read this but Maine has actually adopted this but is trying to repeal it. I think it would be awesome if you revisited the topic even just briefly in the hopes that Maine won't make the mistake of going back.
Why are they trying to repeal it?! It's at the very least, a huge improvement from what the presidential election has.
If only The U.S.A were as simple as the wild.
We need this in the United States, but the GOP would be against because they know they would lose every time.
Please may we have this system. T.T
This was the video that kickstarted my interest in ranked-choice voting many years ago and it's the biggest reason I'm supporting presidential candidate Andrew Yang in the 2020 Democratic primaries. He's the only one bringing this option to light. Yang 2020!
Bernie has endorsed it for years
I love how it has to be the Queen Lion who switches the kingdom to AV, because if it was up to the gorillas and leopards, it would never happen.
Here's one potential issue I have with this system:
Imagine we have a system with four parties: A, B, C, D, and E. Now we'll use the assumption that you appear to make in the video where everyone who votes for party A first has a list identical to their fellow A-voters, and the same for the other 4 parties' voters. Now lets look at all of the lists and how many people voted for each candidate.
A, C, B, D, E 25%
B, C, A, D, E 15%
C, B, A, D, E 05%
D, C, B, E, A 25%
E, C, D, A, B 30%
Now in this system, C would be the least popular candidate, getting eliminated first, and having his votes redistributed to B.
A, B, D, E 25%
B, A, D, E 20%
D, B, E, A 25%
E, D, A, B 30%
Then B is eliminated and has their votes given to A.
A, D, E 45%
D, E, A 25%
E, D, A 30%
Then D is eliminated and has his votes handed to E.
A, E 45%
E, A 55%
E is declared winner under this system. The problem I have with this system is that C is clearly the best candidate, because while very few people wanted him the most, everybody approved of him. 75% preferred him over A, 85% preferred him over B, 75% preferred him over D, and 70% of the populations *wanted him more than the person who won*. If it was 1v1 with just C vs *ANY* of his competition, he would have won by a landslide. Yet, he lost because he was an appealing candidate to everyone, but he wasn't the most appealing candidate to anyone. E won, yet nearly everyone who didn't vote for him ranked him dead last or close to it and he is clearly not wanted by ANYONE but strong E supporters, and the only reason he wins is because, in D's eyes, he's a lesser evil than A. But you know who else is a lesser evil than A in D's eyes? C. In nearly everyone's eyes (except A voters, obviously).
This system doesn't solve every issue with voting. C would have won a 1 on 1 election with any of these people, and he should have won, but doesn't under this system. He wouldn't have won under FPTP either, so at least Alternative Vote is still better than FPTP.
"Now in this system, C would be the least popular candidate, getting eliminated first, and having his votes redistributed to B."
That's not how it works, the votes would be redistributed by individual voters, not all of the people who voted for C first would vote for B second
MiauFrito That is how it works in my hypothetical situation. I literally said:
"Now we'll use the assumption that you appear to make in the video where everyone who votes for party A first has a list identical to their fellow A-voters, and the same for the other 4 parties' voters."
My point that "70% of the populations wanted him more than the person who won" still stands. Making things more complicated by tracking every single individual voter needlessly makes it more difficult to get my point across without actually improving the argument.
I've been thinking about this too. That could be an issue. I just wonder how realistic of a scenario that would be though.
+Nevan Lowe Instead having 5 choices, make it 3 choices I guess helps?
HakingMC
I don't think that helps. I don't think it's a realistic scenario, although it is possible.
Alternative vote actually does have *a* spoiler effect, just not the same spoiler effect as FPtP.
It's called something else I'm pretty sure
I know that Borda Count has a something like a reverse spoiler effect.
@@oogabooga7886 It's called "the spoiler effect". Voting honestly for a third party spoils the election and helps your least favorite win.
@@eyescreamcake that's what happens in FPTP. In AV you can rank your favorite 1st, then safe choice 2nd. If your 1st choice is a 3rd party and gets few votes, your vote will not be wasted and will be transferred to your next choice.
This is exactly what AV eliminates. There is a different spoiler effect but it's not this.
Alternative voting is better than First Past the Post, but it's worst than many other possible systems. There are many ways in which alternative voting produces pathological results, such as: voting for someone can decrease the chances they'll win. Look up Approval Voting: vote for every candidate you "approve" of, without rankings. It's a lot simpler to explain and understand, can be implemented with existing ballots and machines, and eliminates most of the problems with alternative voting, but is less well known. Spread the word!
This is a 5 year old video. My country just held a presidential election with 9 candidates. 6 of these candidates never even stood a chance and it was well known before the elections. 19% of the counted votes went to them. That means that just under a fifth of the votes were completely useless. People wasting their votes on people known to not get elected. The difference between the elected president and runner up was less than 8%. Together the two got just under 67% of the votes. The one in 3rd place then got 15% of the votes. So in my opinion, when the two front runners were obviously going to be competing against each other, voting for anyone else than those two was a wasted vote. In other words, 33% of the votes are trash. Imagine if these 33% would have to choose between the two main runners.. or if it were the Alternative Vote system. Results could've been completely different and in my opinion, more accurate.
In Brazil SLIGHTLY better, there is a 2nd round of voting where if none gets more then 50% the 2 candidates with most votes dispute.
Sadly, there are no fully fair voting systems and we cannot expect to implement one because it has been mathematically proven that the production of one with every criteria that's employed to define fairness met; however, certainly, there are better systems and first past the post is possibly one of the worst. We must get rid of it.
Greetings from 2020! In a Ballot Measure the state of Alaska in the USA has voted in favor of creating a ranked-choice voting system!!
Huge win for democracy and alternative voting. Your video has been so influential over the years.
Thank you for making it CPG Grey!! BTW at 2:55 in this video you mention the concept of "Condorcet Winner" and how you will do another video on this. Could you please?
I'm from Canada. Our democracy is horrible. First-past-the-post ruins everything.
Poor turtle, he always loses... He's my favourite though!
This system really shined in the most recent 2022 Australian federal election where the independents and greens got a whole load of seats.
Well we really need that in all democracies ^^
Can we chance to this system in Canada??!! No, because then (18 year old girls, and women won't be able to vote for a cute guy for PM!!) (Excuse me while I go retch!)
Yes, they can. They just put '1' instead of 'X' and then they put '2', '3' etc against the rest of the candidates.
Yes. Think that will happen. FPP, works well for the Liberals.
Ahhh when he said "we'll talk about that another time" he actually talked about it, so refreshing
I think a major problem facing democracy today is party politics.
Having political parties just divides people into teams much like football teams. They stop thinking about the substance of the policies and support "their parties policy" instead.
If we banned political parties then all politicians would be judged by their policies and character alone.that would be awesome!
We need to combine all of your amazing political videos and air them after the Evening News.
Bring back Schoolhouse Rock!
0:14 "the sissenz"
Could you do a video about other voting systems like score voting? Many people will look at this and think alternative vote is the best, but it still trends towards two parties and it still has the spoiler effect where switching votes from one candidate to another can make a third candidate win.
Glad to see more people aware of this
In Australia, our federal Government is elected by this system. We call it preferential voting.
And yet your House is still a two-party system… The system you use in the Senate is better.
2:58 How does this system tend towards two parties? I thought one of the advantages of AV was that it didn't...
I don't really know the answer, but from personal as an Australian (where all State and Federal lower house elections are AV), I can say this is definitely the case. The two big parties, the Coalition and Labor, have a stranglehold on all our parliaments.
If I'd have to hazard a guess, I'd say it's because most voters who pick a smaller party as there first will pick one of the big parties as their second preference. For example, almost all Greens voters pick Labor as their second preference so there votes usually end up going to Labor anyway for most seats.
I'm sure there's a more mathematical explanation, but that's beyond me personally.
KasabianFan44 this will be long.
It's because, in the set of all the parties, there will be two parties where at least one of them has similar appeal to the voter as the voter's first choice - they offer the best compromise of ideas for the voter. This means they will get higher rankings on that voter's card than parties with ideas that are worse compromises for the voter. Once the votes are tallied, the party with the most 1st or 2nd votes I.e. The party that is either the favourite or the best compromise for voters gets the top spot, while the party with the next most 1st and 2nd votes gets the second spot. Because the voters will choose their 2nd vote as a compromise on their 1st vote, it is unlikely that the ranking of those 2 parties on a voter's ballot will change, so they'll stay close together I.e. 1st and 2nd, 4th and 5th etc. This means that those two parties get split off into pairs in the mind of the voter, which effectively reduces it to one vote. From here, the most preferred of these 2 parties gains the advantage on the other, and then the pattern that was described in the "The problem with the First Past the Post voting explained" video is applied here, go see that video for the explanation of that.
this system is still not spoiler free. Take 3 candidates, A, B, C with a preference schedule that looks like:
2 votes: C > A > B (C preferred over A and B. A preferred over B)
3 votes: A > B > C
4 votes: B > C > A
By this method, in the first round, C will have 2 votes, A will have 3, B will have 4. C is eliminated, and their votes go to A (by preference schedule)
In the second round, A will have 5 votes, B will have 4. B is eliminated and A is the winner.
Now, if B is removed from the election cycle, the preference schedule will look like
2 votes: C > A
3 votes: A > C
4 votes: C > A
Here, C has 6 votes, and A has 3. A is eliminated, and C wins. Therefore, candidate B is a spoiler for candidate C, and this method is not spoiler free!
You're right that it has spoilers. Although your example contains a Condorcet cycle. A is preferred to B by a majority, B is preferred to C by a majority, and C is preferred to A by a majority. Whoever your method say wins, you can make an example where eliminating one of the other candidates changes the winner (as long as it's majoritarian. And rank-based).
But you can make an example for AV without cycles.
Something that has really happened:
34%: P > D > R
29%: D > P > R
37%: R > D > P
D is preferred by a majority versus _both_ R and P (no cycle).
Also, R prefers D. But P wins.
However, if the R>D>P voters instead voted D>R>P, voting for their lesser evil, then D wins, which is better for R. R was a spoiler for D. Basically, the fact that the R's put D 2nd was completely ignored because D was already eliminated.
In practice, AV still seems to encourage two-party domination, even though delayed top-two runoffs don't. And basically every voting method behaves the same as FPTP when there are only two strong candidates. The example I gave is one of the few examples when the AV winner wasn't the same as the FPTP winner, and it still didn't give a good result.
But there are other, better methods. Condorcet methods like Ranked Pairs or Schulze, or rating-based methods like Score or Approval. These even have STV-like proportional variants.
We need this now I’m basically forced to vote against the party I want so I can block the tories from taking over my constituency
and if we hadn’t had fptp no one would’ve had to resort to tactical voting, Boris Johnson would not have got a majority, Lib Dem’s and greens would be better represented etc. It’s sickening really
The problem with is that if your first choice is popular, your second choice is irrelevant. For example .. consider the graph at 1:52. Turtle is eliminated. What if Turtle was everyone's second choice? That would make turtle the most commonly popular candidate - but with AV we just eliminated him. So then where do the second choice votes go? they are thrown out. So in order to make this work, you would have to keep all candidates in the running, and increment their votes as you go through each elimination ... until you only have one.
check out Approval Voting. it's simpler, and can have the same effect.
Has a much better effect.
3:55 Why this will never be implemented in a 2 party system. In a rare twist of events, the two big parties both agree they don't want to work harder for their elections!
how do you change a countries voting system
rathkAliA vote to change the voting system so voting becomes more fair
Yo dawg. I herd you like voting. So I made you vote for your voting system so you can vote for how you want to vote.
Depends on the country, really.
Its difficult in America because our Constitution and system are put in a way that specifically resists changing voting systems. Mostly because the people writing it were afraid that if you were able to change voting systems then eventually someone would make the nation a monarchy again.
Alforbia Well if you want to get technical about it the US was never a monarchy.
If the third party brings in voters from both major parties, it could pass one of them, which would spoil the election
Instead of a vote, rate each candidate on a scale from -1 to 1. This solves all the problems, has excellent granularity, and produces the most desirable candidate.
I wish we could have this in my country. There's a problem though:
A. Everyone is happy, except the two main parties that got into office through the old system.
B. The people with the power to change the system are the ones in office making the rules.
C. Those people in office are almost all from the two main parties.
D. Refer to letter A.
The Hedgehog on 0:52 is so cuuute!!!
Hasan Minaj's Patriot Act's newest episode on elections covered the alternate vote!!
Actually, there's a great video that explains how the alternative vote does have a delayed spoiler effect, because in the central party will eventually split their vote instead of giving it all to the new party, which is assumed in alternative vote. Personally, I prefer a point voting system- where you give all the candidates points based on how much you like them. So a voter could give turtle 10/10, leopard 3/10, Owl 5/10, Gorilla 0/10. If turtle had high favor, even if he isn't everyone's first choice, he could win so long as everyone is mediocre towards the other candidates. It also makes it much harder to steal votes from one another because if a voter wanted they could score everyone very high or very low. Even if parties try to knock people off the polls, that would potentially hurt them, and gerrymandering wouldn't be as big of an issue.
This system is excellent. It's normally called Score or Range, or Approval for the simplest version. It even has a party agnostic proportional version.
Would you consider making another video in this series going over the STAR (Score then automatic runoff) voting method?
I got here because youtube reccomend this video and tag it as #Animal
its not wrong but kinda misleading =,=
I thought it was fun seeing how the animals organise their elections.
And it was funny that Wallaby told them how to do it and he doesn't even live there.
CGP Grey: You really need to take this video down. IRV has the spoiler effect (aka. the centre squeeze effect) and all of the other problems that Single-choice voting systems do (this is because, basically, it's a Single-choice system disguised as a Ranked system), so this video is just contributing to the continuing con-artistry of getting us to switch from Single-choice to IRV and back again. Both are broken. Both are part of the same con-trick. The only systems that can work are based on Score voting (e.g. Approval Voting, STAR voting, Re-Weighted Score voting, etc) as you've covered in your other videos.
PLEASE seriously consider taking this video down for the reasons above. Single-choice and IRV are actively harming democracy by causing the same problems as each other (e.g. creating two large-scale parties that shut out all of the others), and also by stopping Score voting systems from being implemented for fundamentally dodgy reasons.
We are NEVER going to achieve a well functioning politically-representative world while Single-choice and IRV are allowed to be implemented for multi-party elections, but we CAN achieve this with Score voting systems.
Damn it Turtle, every election it's the same thing!
Ranked Choice Voting is on the ballot in Massachusetts and Alaska in the 2020 general election. If you know anyone voting in those states, send them this video!
A better voting system (Approval+Runoff) was on the ballot in St Louis, and it passed by a landslide. Try a better reform in MA next time. :)
We Desperately need this. Now more than ever.
Another thing that RCV and Approval Voting provide over Plurality (or FPTP) Voting, and this has been the experience of the few cities in the U.S. that have implemented this, is a significant drop in negative campaigning. Since you're no longer just trying to appeal to your base and, at best, grow your base and are instead trying to get everyone else's base to rank you as #2, you have to be more, well, stately and appreciative of the people who might not rank you #1!
Ranked choice voting passed in New York City yesterday! I voted for it and volunteered to promote it. I learned about it here first. Thank you!
i would imagine that this comment is one of the most gratifying pieces of feedback grey has ever received
I think the best kind of election is like the one in the papal conclave. Candidates are set up and the people vote until one gets a two thirds majority. One balloting per day to make it not tiring.
Um idk how big/small your country is, but it takes hours for one vote to be cast. So doing it everyday outside of a very small populus wouldn't such a good idea & would be tiring.
Lol This is what happens in Eurovion xD
Even when exist the "Neighbourning vote" and the friend countries give 8, 10 and 12 points to each other, only the best music win, because this music get the 7 points from their all. :)
Go fuck yourself, you probably only speak english...
+Rúben Luso Good job at generalizing, dickweed.
+Rúben Luso Good point. Everyone complains about neighbour voting ruining Eurovision, but if that was the case, wouldn't we have the same winner every year? Some are obviously at an advantage, but all in all, almost all the countries have to agree on the winner :)
I even think that, nowadays, the "hater vote" like btw Armenia and Azerbaijan it's even more obvious, comparing to the "neighbourn vote" like btw Cyprus and Greece.
Rúben Luso Oh yeah. True. I wish it was back to just ranking the top 10. (And Azerbaijan officials not arresting Azerbaijanis for voting on Armenia)
1:00 2020 US election in a nutshell
This is a really good explanation of the alternative vote system. Thanks for putting the work into this.
Approval voting is a good way forward as well.
Under Approval voting, it is ALWAYS safe to vote for your favorite candidate. Under "Alternative Vote" it is not.
@@eyescreamcake sure it is! since you have multiple choices, your vote will go down the list until it finds one of the frontrunners in the race.
However, approval and STAR are intriguing and I would like to learn more about them
Electing Kings? What is this, the Holy Roman Empire or something?
Hmm... How about an Alternative vote MMP system...
no you do stv
Do a video on STAR voting! It’s better than instant runoff voting (the alternative vote) because people’s votes count more equally. Take Burlington, Vermont’s 2009 mayoral election as an example. The results weren’t truly representative of the population. Under STAR voting, the problem they faced where the fact that second votes didn’t count as much swayed the results to a non-representative candidate is eliminated.
STAR (Score Then Automatic Runoff) voting has two steps. First, you give each candidate a score from zero to five. Any candidates you don’t score get a zero. A score of five is counted as five votes, a score of one is counted as one vote, etc. Second, once the scores are counted, the top two candidates have an automatic runoff. Whoever you gave a higher score gets your vote. If you scored them the same, your vote is discarded since you have no preference, and then whoever got the most votes in the runoff wins. This fixes the problems that IRV has.
You are referring to Instant run off voting. We need ballot initiatives for this in all 50 states. I believe Vermont has IRV but I am not sure of the rest of the states.
"there isn't time to explain here"
Math geek: *HOW DARE YOU IGNORE ME*
Australia does have the Alternative voting system, though not exactly as explained.
It is true that we number our most wanted to least wanted candidates, therefore preferences does matter. Though the major parties have put two interesting little rules in there and I more then a little suspect, that they did this to further insure a leaning to either of the two major parties.
Firstly we get two pieces of paper. You either use one or the other to vote.
One is a paper to vote for either of the main parties ...
Put an X HERE, or an X THERE, then your finished, done!
Painless... wasn't it...
Then you can here the two major parties laughing at the stupid Australians, that just gave them the majority.
The other paper is a long list of minor and independent parties, along with the individual two major parties candidates. And draconian as it is, you must fill in every box, or your vote does not count. If even one box is left unnumbered or unreadable, then your vote does not count. There is mostly between 50 to 60 of these boxes, to number. So obviously most people do unfortunately go for the quicker and easier option and fill out the major party paper and be done with it. Like picking the government that you want to rule you for another 4 years is just not worth another 10 to 15 minutes, out of your busy lifestyle. Also the people are fooled into thinking that their vote for either of the minor candidatures, makes no difference, because either of the two major parties will get into government with a majority anyway. It does matter though, because enough minor and independent party candidates, do get into power and cause a headache to the main parties and their plans for dominance. The balance of power is often held by independents and the major parties have to sometimes make important concessions to get their bills through parliament.
Like Bill form the "Koala First Party", that causes the government to cut down a lot less eucalyptus trees to get their "Road To Nowhere Bill" through the Senate.
Actually it is the Senate that mostly has the most independents, that end up stopping bills going through, then in the House of Representatives.
I am sure you understood the Aussie system better then I do anyway, but these two differences try and push us further towards a two party majority. Though with a sprinkling of independents in the mix, it does make for a fairer system.
The United States really should have and Alternative voting system, as well. It simply is a better and fairer voting system.
Lastly if you made it this far reading this comment. You Americans really need to elect Ron Paul, the next time you get a chance. He is your only chance to save the US from falling, just like every other empire in history.
I know grey is against this idea, but id love to hear ideas for this working with the electoral college
"No spoiler effect" is a lie. Both still have a spoiler effect.
The Philippines will have its presidential election come May 2022 and there are over 5 candidates, including a late dictator's son who's very popular... and now I wonder how a ranking system would drastically affect who would win.
AV works for each seat in isolation, but when those seats need to be collated into governments (where the legislative and executive branches are not split, e.g. the UK), a greater number of different parties with MPs results in continual coalition governments. Having coalitions as the 'norm' has some positives but, in my opinion, mostly negatives - it reduces accountability for the executive as a whole, allowing them to hide behind shady backroom coalition deals, and reduces the governability of the nation.
EVRY COUNTRY NEEDS AV!!!!
Single Transferable Vote is better (video also made by CGP Grey):
/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI
But does that work for just one office?
+SacmanXman2 no it doesn't. America could, for example, adopt STV for its House of Representatives, but not the presidency. (Incidentally, this is exactly why the very idea of a president is not a very good one, compared to a Prime Minister.)
I cannot BELIEVE that Britain didn't vote to change to this new system and stuck with the stupid FPTP system.
The idea that people don't understand it shocks me, since it's basically the same as the voting system on the X Factor.
***** I wasn't old enough to vote when the referendum came.
Bro this video is 10 years old!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!???????/ Dear lord I feel I watched it come out just a few years ago
The problem with the Alternative Vote in the United States (if it were to be passed in all states today, hypothetically speaking) is that it makes it much more likely for a candidate to not receive the required 270 electoral votes. If no candidate receives the 270 electoral votes, the House of Representatives decides the next president.
What needs to happen before passing the Alternative Vote in the United States is the National Popular Vote legislature, which would effectively get rid of the electoral college and decide the president via popular vote. After that legislature passes in 270 electoral votes worth of states (currently 105 more electoral votes worth of states are needed), then we can go about passing the Alternative Vote.
I suggest you lookup the National Popular Vote to see if your state has passed it yet, and if not, writing a letter to your representative to try and get it passed.
Only if it's a two party system.
simple solution:
abolish the electoral college.
Aiden yep. hard part is getting red states to agree to abolish it.
What if you apply the AV system to the Electoral college itself? So, each state would also get to order the candidates in order of preference and, if no one gets 270, the candidate with the fewer Electoral College votes is eliminated and those votes are transferred to the states' second choice candidates.
Vovix100 well that won't get rid of the problems that come with the electoral college. The electoral college means that some votes count more than others