Yes, but we still have two parties. RCV doesn't solve what's claimed. RCV entrenches the two parties (Duverger's Law). "Approval Voting" tears down the two party system. Easily, cheaply, obviously. AV eliminates "lesser of evils", "fear of wasted vote", "favorite betrayal" strategies. EC, RCV, IRV are complex distractions that don't solve the two party problem. Vote for all approved candidates, the highest count wins; Same old ballots, same counting machines. Just better. It's how you'd select restaurants, outfits, vacations, any election seeking the widest satisfaction from multiple options is "Approval Voting".
@@madden8021 “Ranked choice voting” will plunge The United States of America into a one party system that will ultimately lead to America’s sovereignty being dissolved and absorbed into a globalist communist dystopian nightmare
RCV has an even worse spoiler effect than our current method. Trump would have almost definitely won under RCV. If you study the math behind it you'll realise RCV is NOT the better voting method we need.
@@joshdemay9130 Good question, it's because it fails the Favorite Betrayal Criterion (m.ruclips.net/video/JtKAScORevQ/видео.html), which is a Spoiler Effect. It happens more than you'd want, in Australia and Ireland, and more recently Maine, and happened in not less than a few of these places: (electionscience.org/library/irv-repealed/)
@@alanivar2752 Its only spoiler effect if you equate all parties to the most popular ones. Third parties in US have very different views from the duopoly.
@@plankalkulcompiler9468 Yes! The Two-Party Disaster. Damn Duverger's Law, unfortunately IRV also fails this. Approval Voting, however, is the way to go if we want more, and more diverse, parties
What do you mean by a 75% criterion. Do you mean a 75% quota because once one candidate reaches a 50% quota, they are guaranteed to hit a 75% quota because no candidate can be eliminated after hitting a 50% quota. Thus changing IRV's quota from 50% to 75% would not fix any of IRV's problems
The problem with IRV is that good candidates are eliminated early on, so the only way to fix IRV is to 1. change how candidates are eleminated (like Nalson's Method en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanson%27s_method or Schulze Method en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanson%27s_method) 2. use a completely different way to find a winner that does not require multiple elimination rounds (like Minimax en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimax_Condorcet or Ranked Pairs en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_pairs) 3. change everything and even use a new ballot type (like Majority Judgement en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_judgment or Approval en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_judgment) In all three cases, you will end up creating a voting system that is distinctly not IRV
"STAR Voting" Method is the best voting method (Equality, Accuracy, Honesty, Expressiveness and Simplicity. Another great voting method: "Approval Voting" (Simple and Accurate). "RCV (IRV)" is an improvement over the current "pick-one" voting method.
Of course you still have to protect the vote, end voter suppression, have publicly financed elections, have elections take place only on paper, and take place over several days, institute immediate registration, ensure that candidates get equal time in media and debates, etc etc.
"ensure that candidates get equal time in media and debates" Brazil does that. 90% are joke candidates. A clown was actually elected once (to senate or something). He attended more meetings than anyone else had done before
Frito if the people would prefer some random person over the available candidates that's their choice. Frankly, we'd be better off selecting congress by lottery (much like a draft or jury duty) than our current system (even though that's a pretty poor method of selection), so I don't really see people having an out if they're too disgusted with the "real" choices presented to the as 100% a bad thing.
Non necessarily. If RCV is implemented in the state level, the party of the top choice would still get to send their electors to the electoral college and they can cast a vote for their candidate. A third party or dark horse candidate can be elected if enuf of the state RCV proclaims the same candidate as President
@@drummerdave4689 No, DON'T sign that. RCV is not a better alternative to our current system. Not only does it have literally 0 advantages over our current system, it makes the Spoiler Effect much more frequent. We need a new Voting Method, but RCV will only make things much worse than they already are now.
@@zacharyarons6950 (To answer your 2nd question 1st: Approval Voting) Let's first look at the issues with the way we vote now: Most Election Reform experts agree that 3 of the biggest issues are Duverger's Law (mathematically-enforced Two-Party Disaster), Gerrymandering, and some say worst of all, the Spoiler Effect. IRV does nothing to fix the first two problems. Even IRV advocates concede that pretty much the only thing IRV has over First-Past-the-Post is how it fixes Vote Splitting. But this is not true, it merely does it differently. The Favorite Betrayal Criterion (m.ruclips.net/video/JtKAScORevQ/видео.html 3:34) is like the Spoiler Effect on steroids, and is more prevalent than Vote Splitting today, as seen in Australia and Ireland, (and tragically, soon in Alaska and Maine), places where voters hate their IRV Voting Method as much as much as Americans hate FPTP. Approval Voting is not affected by Duverger's Law, disincetivises gerrymandering by making it often ineffective, or even backfire, and is truly immune from the Spoiler Effect. Monotonicity: IRV fails the Monotonicity Criterion, which breaks down to, you can harm a candidate by giving them a higher ranking or help a candidate by ranking them lower. The claim that you are ENCOURAGED to rank candidates in order of preference is simply a lie, and for me personally, that's a broken system that deserves no place in a democracy. Participation: IRV fails the Participation Criterion. Yup, you can literally help your preferred candidates by just staying home. Any Voting Method that disincentivises voting is awful in my book. (Even plurality doesn't screw up THIS bad!) Now, the following aren't so much 'Why not IRV' as they are 'Why Approval'. They're just bonus things to stack up on top of its awesomeness Majority-Winner: A Majority-Winner is defined as any candidate that is 50%+1 of the electorate's #1 choice, and the Majority-Winner Criterion asks whether, assuming such a candidate exists, that candidate is guaranteed to win. IRV eliminates candidates even until whole ballots are exhauated. 20% of ballots could have all their candidates eliminated, but if 40%+1 of voters pick somebody, they will claim 'majority!' Approval Voting guarantees a Majority-Winner, whenever such a candidate exists...EXCLUDING highly polarising candidates, which can still be beaten by a more widely popular candidate who may not be most people's first or even second choice Wasted Votes: In Approval Voting, you never have to 'waste your vote'. You can safely vote with both your heart, and your head, selecting candidates you like, but if they're unpopular, also a vote for a candidate with a better chance of success Negative Campaigning: In Allocative Voting Methods, like our current method, candidates are fighting for the same vote. In Comparative methods, like IRV, candidates are competing for a higher rank. But in Evaluative methods, like Approval, who else a voter votes for usually doesn't impact whether or not they vote for you. If you can visualise, status quo and IRV both would use a pie chart, because every voter backs only a single candidate at a time, but Approval would have to use a bar graph, each candidate showing their support from 0%-100% irrespective of other candidates bars While obviously no voting method is capable of ending negative campaigning, Approval Voting disincentivises bringing down opponents, rather than building yourself up, because you are voted on independently from This allows people to Vote on Policy, Not on Personality Proportional-ish: IRV's multi-seat variant, STV, claims proportionality. Which it does pretty well when there isn't a Spoiler handing 2/3 seats in a district to a candidate with only 25% support. While proportionality is often represented by its successes, such as Denmark, we should also look at where it has failed atrociously, such as Guyana where it is almost single-handedly responsible for a literal decades long race war between the descendants of (India) Indian servants, 40% of the population, and African slaves, 30% of the population, the two largest parties being based on little more than race. Thus, I'd argue that while Voting Systems with proportionality as an OUTCOME are awesome, ones with it as a GOAL aren't all they're cracked up to be. When you increase the number and decrease the size of districts for a body like a legislature or School Board, you expect the seats to get closer to proportional, but with Approval Voting doing so fosters proportionality almost exponentially. Approval Voting is not proportional, but it IS proportional-ish On a personal note, while what we define as 'democratic' is subjective, (at least unless a supercomputer wants to butt in and give an objectively best system), to me as a voter, I define it most as Sincere Voting in the context of Voting Methods. With Approval Voting, you are ALWAYS encouraged to vote for your #1 choice. There is NEVER a reason to Approve your 4th-favorite candidate without also Approving your 3rd. You just can't say the same with Ranking, and definitely not with FPTP. In Approval, the closest you come to needing a strategy is deciding where to draw the line between candidates good enough to approve and candidates to not endorse Ultimately, we could very likely have just one shot to fix the way we vote. If we oversell Voting Method Reform, and then give people freakin IRV, people will get burned. So while I will be fine if by the time this gets to the state and federal level we aren't using my favorite Voting Method, I at least hope it's any one of the dozens of better choices than IRV Local polling: Local independent polling (with an intentional oversampling of Spanish-speaking and retired voters) showed that Denverites (where I live) don't like IRV and it likely wouldn't pass on the ballot, but Approval appeals to us and stands a good shot at passing this fall. This follows national patterns: Fargo and St. Louis both supported Approval Voting with well over 60% of the vote. Alaska and Maine just barely squeaked by 50%, and they're not exactly states known for civilian representation. Massachusetts flat out squashed it. Not to mention IRV is expensive and would require a bunch of new laws to be passed TL;DR IRV is an archaic and outdated Voting Method that devolves into FPTP, only works for small towns/states (Telluride, CO; Alaska; Maine) but fails in larger governments (Cary, NC; Pierce County, WA; Massachusettes), and assumes a significant percentage of, let alone every last voter, wants to deeply contemplate whether they like their 4th or 5th candidate better or if they should swap them, or how to break ties, etc. We need a BETER Voting Method, not just a new one. We can't just pick the first one we learn about or that has the biggest advertising budget As a final note, I want to leave you with something I remind everybody of. RCV is arbitrary in every piece of its being. Approval Voting, any Homo habilis could immediately reverse engineer our thought process, why it is the way it is and why we like it, Grog like 'good or bad each option'. Same with plurality, as bad as it otherwise is, was designed (I'm sure unintentionally, and thus why it does such a poor job) to reflect a reality: what most people most want to choose. RCV, specifically the 'eliminate biggest loser go on to choice 2' section was chosen seemingly at random. Why is it unimportant how the biggest loser would place in later rounds? If RCV is for people that care about showing how much they support somebody, why are there mandatory '1' intervals and not individual scoring? As numbers are naturally logarithmic, how does RCV justify its linear nature? And so on. RCV is clearly, at best, half-baked. At worst it's intentionally maliciously designed to be just complicated enough to seem 'well thought out' and just simple enough for voters to 'get' how it works, but not why or how this affects the system as a whole. Not only is its design random, the way it comes to a conclusion is as well. It's just a pseudo-random algorithm designed to appear like a complicated, intelligent process and 'Wow' anybody with less than a college sophomore understanding of math. To those familiar, it's a blatant trick, an ugly façade, dare I say, an insidious plot, to neatly and quietly sweep any that don't support the two established parties into either tent, which?, doesn't matter to them. Denver is only an early stop on the Approval Voting train. But make no mistake, while these kind of things must begin at the municipal level, we plan to disrupt the undemocratic status quo at state and federal government. Follow the Money: With their role as Good Cop and Bad Cop (but both still cops!) for Wall Street, the Democratic and Republican parties assume their roles in publicly supporting/opposing Ranked-Choice Voting, this alleged change, this fake reform. An illusion to waste the democracy reform movement's time, money, energy, what does it matter to them? The strongest bipartisan issue in history is keeping the system bipartisan.
U r an idio t u probably believe in man made global warming and want to driv an electric car now learn how electoral college really works giving less populated areas of the country the same voting power as big cities and that's the truth. God help us sorry u probably sont believe in Jesus neither but will still pray 4 u..
And the worst part is that the popular vote does not make the ultimate decision over the Electoral College. We literally have Representatives electing other Representatives. We literally have no voice in are at the mercy of our government.
Don't forget. What we need to do is get rid of the Electoral College too and nationally and directly elect the President of the United States 🇺🇲 using EXACTLY what is explained in this video!
But let's assume 50 of Americans vote as their first choice for president a and as second president b, and the other half the other way around. Which votes are discarded first?
they just explain it that way for the sake of simplicity. everyone watching this understands that it's the electoral college that actually votes, not the individuals
The idea is nice and it might be a step in the right direction, but the problem is two party dominance. RCV in Australia has done little to actually curb this. With only 2 parties that can win, they are more easily bought by interest groups.
The solution is to switch to a voting system in which each vote counts with equal influence over the result, in the sense that for every possible vote, there is another possible vote that will exactly cancel it. The simplest system that has this characteristic is Approval Voting.
Approval voting is simpler and eliminates the spoiler effect more than RCV. @@williamwaugh8670 in other words, all information (voter preference) is applied immediately. RCV presents complex strategies in which voters vote against their own preferences. Suppose I prefer Green but believe Blue is more likely to win, I would rank Blue second, expecting the vote to be counted in runoff. However, if Green performs well, my Blue vote will never be counted, and Orange may win who would have lost in Plurality against Blue. In Plurality voting, voters usually understand and avoid the spoiler effect. RCV creates unexpected spoiler effects.
RCV doesn't solve what's claimed. RCV entrenches the two parties (Duverger's Law). "Approval Voting" tears down the two party system. Easily, cheaply, obviously. AV eliminates "lesser of evils", "fear of wasted vote", "favorite betrayal" strategies. EC, RCV, IRV are complex distractions that don't solve the two party problem. Vote for all approved candidates, the highest count wins; Same old ballots, same counting machines. Just better. It's how you'd select restaurants, outfits, vacations, any election seeking the widest satisfaction from multiple options is "Approval Voting".
Don't social scientist mathematicians think that approval voting is better? Our current machines can do it already. But, yes, this would be totally better than what we have.
I think you are describing Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) even though it isn't the only "ranked-choice voting". IRV does not give equal power to all voters. Consequently, some voters can game the system and have their way over the wishes of an equal or higher number of other voters who disagree with them. This difference in power leaves open a crack in the system, into which political money can insert its wedge, resulting in the rule of capital. Of course, the current choose-one plurality system has that problem, too (maybe even to a worse degree). A solution (and the simplest solution) is Approval Voting. In Approval Voting, the voter rates each candidate independently of the others, instead of trying to rank them. There are two ratings: approval and disapproval. The most-approved candidate wins.
That's impractical, because most people would vote 10/10 on one candidate and 0/10 on other candidates. Most people aren't smart enough to rate everyone accurately. Ranked choice voting (more commonly known as Alternative Vote) is more practical and realistic. In a utopia, or maybe a small canton in Switzerland it may be possible but in a country as big as the US it can't work.
But that method still has a spoiler effect because if I want to vote Green, but think that the Dem has a better chance, then voting for the Dem hurts the candidate I actually want to win. With ranked-choice, I have given my candidate the best chance of winning without compromising the ability of the moderate Dem of winning.
@@kenofjustice212 No analysis I know of explains how to distinguish harmful inequality from a harmless inequality. Therefore, choosing a voting system that does not provide equality is not safe.
the ranked choice voting that is described her is called "instand run off" or if you are if you are more systematic about it "least popular elimination vote" there are tonnes of more ranked choice voting systems. Most of them are better. in fact I would classify IRV as the second worst (among those that are actually in discussion) only surpassed by first past the post. I am a bit upset, that IRV gets sell d as the alternative. The alternative for ranked choice voting are off course score voting systems. And there is an argument, that those might be better than ranked choice. That is for single winner election of course. For legislative bodies like the House of Representatives it is to be frank really fucking stupid to do a bunch of single winner election for each district with a ranked choice system.
If the media would talk about third party candidates like they do about the main two candidates for 24 hours straight, maybe a third party would have a chance. To say a ranked voting system would some how make you feel better for not voting for the lesser of two evils is irrelevant. One of the lesser of two evils will end up winning.
Democrat and Republican insiders. Also a guy from the Heritage Foundation in a CNBC video because apparently a conservative group doesnt like a more open marketplace of ideas in elections.
Ranked Choice Voting does a great job appearing to do good while implementing evil. Its as interesting, perplexing, and appropriately comparable to how new Social Media reliably deteriorates social norms.
What ranked choice system are you talking about? Just "instand run of" (the one that is the one explained here) or do you include better methodes? If you include all ranked choice systems you have some explaining to do. But if your point is just that this topic is discussed on a way to superficial level. I would agree to that.
I like the idea of being able to vote against someone instead of voting for someone. So if you really hate candidate X, you just subtract a vote from them and don't add to anybody else's total.
Mothuzad Or, yknow, you could put a rank for every candidate EXCEPT the one you don't like. that way, no matter who it comes down to, you're voting against them.
Sure, in a ranked voting system, that works. As long as you have enough ranks for all the candidates except one. The example in the video doesn't show this as a possibility though. I wasn't talking about ranked voting though. Rather, I mentioned another alternative system that would also make mudslinging ineffective. I can see why talking about other improvements over the current system would be counterproductive though. The last thing we need is infighting about which kind of improvements we need to make. As long as we can reasonable believe that our current plan is viable, we should just support each other. If the current proposal is broken, only then would it be worthwhile to come up with alternatives.
@@RepresentUs and what percentage of having the vote or not would qualify as eliminated. What if The first place candidate has 40% of the vote, and then everyone had as their 2nd pick a person with 60% of the vote? What if then, half of the votes for the 2nd pick, were actually the 2nd pick to people who had the 1st place person. That could create an issue of exactly what and when you would eliminate the 1st place candidate? In this example if you never eliminated the first place person, they would have 40% and the second place would have 30%. But if you decided to eliminate them the 2nd place person would then get half of those votes and they would have 60% Given what we know about how people like to game political systems, i feel like there are way to many unknowns at this point, and could end up being abused even worse than our current system.
@@ScottM508 "what percentage of having the vote or not would qualify as eliminated" Answer: The candidate with the LOWEST number of 1st choice votes. There is no ambiguity or unknowns with this form of elimination selection criteria. Longer answer: (Aggregate Phase) They take all of the votes and put them into 'piles' based on their top choice. (Eliminate And Re-distribute Phase) Whichever pile is the smallest gets the votes redistributed to their next choices (imagine crossing out the top choice on all of those votes). Then repeat both phases. Eventually, one of the piles will be more than 50%, at which point you stop and declare them the winner. It's quite simple and unambiguous.
@@RepresentUs That's only true if your 2nd choice is still in the race. If you vote A > B > C, and B is eliminated first, your preference for B > C is discarded, meaning some voters get more of a voice than others. In fact, it's possible that the majority of voters express B > C on their ballots and C still wins. This is a junk voting system and you should stop spreading these myths about it and start promoting something better.
This might work but I need to research the rating/ star system and see how it compares. Another thing that might work is a multi party system. See JJ McCulloughs video for more information.
Liberal, not progressive. Just because they stole that tag doesn't mean they are in any way like that. Just like conservatives should have lost that tag under Bush. BTW on the surface this does appear like a really strong helpful set up. I would need to hear other sides and weigh in on this. But yea. I agree so far that this is a very good implementation. As a Christian Conservative who is maga I would still love the push this would give other more Conservative parties. It might even lead to breaking down this two party system which is a good thing. And yes it would also equally help liberals and everyone. I think.. Again. We need to look at this but openly discuss it.
This system will making vote counting costly and time consuming especially when voters are in millions and vote through ballot paper(countries like america)
There's an evolution to Preferential Voting advocacy. 1. You learn about the flaws of plurality/FPTP voting (Duverger's Law) and search for a solution. 2. You discover Ranked Choice Voting, "THIS IS IT! Let's create a RUclips video"
I highly recommend watching a RUclips video on the flaws of Instant Runoff (a.k.a. Alternative Vote) instead of reading my explanation below. So for people that don't understand why IRV requires strategic voting, let's say there are three candidates on a spectrum (A B C). Your preferred order of the candidates is A > B > C. So that's how you and everyone like you ranks them. In the calculation phase no one has a majority and candidate B (your second choice) had the fewest 1st choice votes so they are eliminated and their ballots go to the marked second choice. The majority of those B voters might not go to A, they might actually go to C, earning them a majority and your least favorite candidate would win. But if all the A voters had just voted for B in the first place B would have received a majority and your second choice would have won (which would have been a better outcome for you). This is why IRV still fails the Favorite Betrayal criterion. You cannot just vote your favorite, you still must strategically vote. Range (a.k.a Score) Voting, Score Runoff Voting, and even Approval Voting are better systems, although some people argue that Approval voting will result in inoffensive milquetoast leaders...which may or may not be a good thing. Some people also argue that Range voting just results in (due to the propensity to strategically vote "max for favorite, min for everyone else") Approval Voting anyway. tl;dr - Score Runoff (look it up at equal.vote)
Would a two round election with the first round being IRV and the second round being first past the post fix the spoiler effect problem? We already have a two round system in CA and it seems like IRV would do a lot to allow smaller parties a chance in the general election. Republican vs Green, Democrat vs Libertarian, or Green vs Libertarian seems likely to happen and preferable to the two party (sometimes Dem vs Dem) runoffs we have currently and a Republican vs Libertarian seems very unlikely. I'm genuinely curious though! It seems like you've thought about this a lot more than I have :)
Check out the Mathematical definition of the spoiler effect: "Possible mathematical definitions for the spoiler effect include failure of the independence of irrelevant alternatives (IIA) axiom, and vote splitting." That's the criterion you're looking for if you want to determine if there's a potential spoiler. IRV violates the Favorite betrayal criterion (FBC) [A voter may be required to rank another candidate above their favorite in order to obtain a result they prefer]. A two phase election (1. IRV and 2. Plurality) doesn't solve that issue because the damage is already done in the IRV phase. In the scenario I describe above the "fringe" candidate (your favorite) got enough votes to kick out your second choice but loses to your least preferred candidate in the second phase. You (and the majority of people) would have preferred your second choice to your least favorite, but your candidate kicked them out. A score + plurality system (Score Runoff Voting) is what I was advocating for above. Score Voting satisfies the FBC.
I made it to step 6 (and, amusingly, went through steps 1-5 as described) but I'm not following steps 7 and after. I don't really get the "problem" mentioned with approval/range voting or its solution. I couldn't find anything on that combo method here on RUclips. I'll google the rest of the internet, but any suggestions?
I think the word "transfer" vote can be confusing. Rank choice voting moves to the next lower tier when the higher choices are not viable; moving down or stepping down in the voter's sequential selections. Say my 1st choice is not the majority, then my vote goes to my 2nd, if 2nd fails to get majority, then my 3rd choice moves up, and etc. My vote is not transferred to another voter, it moves progressively down my line of choices.
Only true if your 2nd choice is still in the race, which is why this is a broken voting system that no one should be advocating. There are much better options.
@@lagg3sbd394 liberals as in the democrats do not nationally support this. Nor do the Conservatives/Republicans. But I think both could get on board but getting this officially past the dnc/Rnc.. hmmm good luck
Scored voting is better (basics is you score your candidate from one number to the other, you can score multiple canidates the same, theirs two ways to tally, you can either add up all the scores for each candidate or you can find the average score for each candidate my preferred system is scores are 0-10 0 being not supported 10 being very very supported, then you find the average for each candidate [rounding to the nearest hundredth] and the candidate with the highest avg score wins or in the case of filling multiple seats pick the canidates one by one starting with the highest average score to the lowest average score until the seats are filled)
What about cardinal systems like approval and scored voting? You can also do balanced versions (look up balanced/combined approval). Ranked voting with 3+ canidates break the arrows impossibility theorem and as such while better than FPTP are almost as flawed
What happens when the person I like most is definitely eliminated and my vote goes to the back up person that I don't like but for some reason put #2? Then that person wins and I technically did vote for them. I'm genuinely asking, how does this stop the spoiler effect in a system that's already geared to elect one of two people, anyway?
Why was instant runoff voting chosen as the ranked choice method? It's been proven to not select the most supported candidates when the 3rd party scores more than a token vote. There are other methods that more consistently elect a more supported candidate.
Been telling everyone this after visiting other countries. Look at New Zealand where you have direct proportional representation. That means if a party gets 10% of the votes than 10% of congress is from that party. Many countries do this. Not here so the 3rd, or 4th, 5th parties hardly ever win a seat. Once in a while an Independent wins a seat here because they were well-known, and that's it. However, I don't think ranked choice is the way. Washington state has a fake rank vote approach where only the top two from primaries make the final vote. In this state, that means now you only have one choice - Democrat A or B, but either way a Democrat.... It's crazy. The devil is in the details. We need multiple choices on the final ballot and give me proportional rep so that the government represents our diverse interests, not just Dems vs Repub.
Ranked Choice is great if we can guarantee the system. Also, there must be an option to NOT PLACE A SECONDARY VOTE. It's a question of ethics. If my options are "Vote for the Lesser of Two Evils by Default" or "Don't Vote for the lesser of Two Evils at All" I should have that option. It's a good option, one you could argue for as morally superior, but it's the same moral quandary of voting "Just to Vote". Ultimately, Jefferson had it right. To paraphrase 'no fewer than 7 parties'...
"Rank choice voting" (more accurately called instant runoff voting) is better than plurality voting, but it is still a pretty bad system that trends towards two parties. It also isn't safe to vote for your favorite. Well liked moderates can get squeezed out in favor of extremists that don't have broad support. If you have a hard left, moderate left, and moderate right candidate, voting for the hard left can eliminate the moderate left who may an easier time beating the moderate right. Order of elimination is very, very important. Approval voting would be much better. It would be much easier to set up powerful voting blocs based on issues.
While approval has some advantages it is at the cost of forcing voters to think tactically. Do you stick with your first choice or risk your second choice wining by giving them a vote too. Condorcet-Schulze is the best method to incentivize sincere voting.
Unfortunately, IRV/RCV doesn't eliminate spoiler effects. It's still best to put your preferred of the two front-runners first, even if they aren't your honest favorite. Everywhere that uses IRV at the national level is still two-party dominated in their IRV seats. If you want to actually solve the spoiler effect, try Approval voting, Score voting, or at least use a Condorcet method.
^Skyval Ream is right. Ranked-Choice is still flawed. Choose a better form of Preferential Voting. My preferred method is Score Runoff (equal.vote). Ranked-Choice Voting is non-monotonic and in many situations violates the Favorite Betrayal criterion.
There is reason to suspect Score Runoff Voting (SRV) may be better than normal Score, particularly if there would be a lot of one-sided strategy. But it does lose some nice properties. For example Score Runoff actually also fails favorite betrayal and is nonmonotonic (EDIT: nevermind, it passes monotonicity), without gaining Later-No-Harm, though it might have a much better balance between them. SRV can't be used on today's Plurality machines, unlike Score. I don't think it works as well with abstentions, but plain score works nicely. Score works nicely with apportionment, I don't think SRV can be used for that. Score also has a party-agnostic proportional variants (in the vein of STV), but I haven't seen a way to make SRV do that. But it's great, might find better winners on average in practice, its logistics/externalities might not be much worse, and especially if it's more enactable, it's an excellent option.
I'm not an expert in "Bayesian Regret"/“Voter satisfaction efficiency”, but from what I understand SRV (Score + 2) has the lowest levels. Of course I would be absolutely fine with Range Voting as well. I merely think that SRV offers more easily understood "intuitive" (meaning they more closely match what we have currently) results than Range, even if the calculation phases are more complex. I also have 'faith' that the electorate can understand that Candidate A with 3.5 stars < Candidate C with 4.1 stars < Candidate B with 4.3 stars if we all agree Range Voting is the way to go.
This video is great right up until 2:16. "...lets you vote for any candidate you want without worrying about the spoiler effect." I think you guys need to go back and edit this video. There are a lot of reasons to support RCV if you choose to without citing false claims. It's a lot better than what we have but RCV (IRV specifically) doesn't solve the spoiler effect. It still has a major problem in elections with multiple viable candidates, exactly the scenario we are trying to create! The issue boils down to the fact that when they tally RCV ballots they don't actually count all the rankings given. If your first choice is eliminated in a later round your other rankings may be gone already. This means that the rest of your ballot is ignored. Ignoring some peoples rankings but counting other people's is unfair and can lead to unrepresentative results. There's a word for selling policy with false claims and press. Represent Us, you are the biggest national organization working on this issue. You can do better! Please make some corrections. At 2:55 it says that "If Johnson doesn't win, your vote is automatically transferred to Trump." This is ONLY true IF Johnson is eliminated BEFORE Trump. It it happens the other way around your 2nd and 3rd choice votes are discarded uncounted. Wasted! At 3:20 it says "You can vote your conscience without hurting your own interests" but this isn't always true either. In elections with 3 or more viable candidates voting honestly CAN backfire and sometimes it is best to vote lesser evil, just like we are pressured to do now. This has been documented in real world elections like the notorious Burlington, VT example that led to RCV's repeal. 3:36 "Maine just changed their statewide elections to RCV." I wish! It was voted in but found to be unconstitutional in Maine. This is being contested and it's yet to be implemented. I hope that Maine does listen to it's voters, but I also hope that those voters aren't supporting RCV based on the false claims above.
IRV is a big improvement on plurality but it can produce odd results. No system is perfect but the Condorcet-Schulze method is as close to perfect as you can get when you want a single winner. But proportional voting is needed for legislatures unless you're fine with the two part duopoly.
I would much rather have approval vs elimination voting. If that moderate was acceptable to 60% of concervatives and 60% of progressives as well as their own 20%, we could have a candidate 80% of the population approves of vs 51.1vs 48.9. Much more unifying vs polarizing.
Ranked Choice Voting is not a small tweak, but a completely different voting system with a different counting process. Unless it includes the right to vote against, it's also not much better than what we have, although it is at least slightly better. Add in the right to vote against, which really is just a small tweak, and ranked choice voting becomes balanced ranked choice voting, which is way better, but even just the small tweak of adding the right to vote against a candidate would be a huge improvement, with or without completely changing the wy people vote and the way those votes are counted. The only changes needed to allow casting and counting of votes against a candidate are to list for and against options on the ballot, and subtract the votes cast against a candidate from the votes cast for that same candidate to get the candidate's effective net vote count, which shows how much more approval then disapproval has been expressed through voting with regard to the idea of electing that candidate.
I'd rather have the choice to cast my vote as a protest vote: Choose one A,B,C, write in, or Protest! SO MANY MORE PEOPLE WOULD VOTE IF THEY HAD THE OPTION TO VOICE THEIR PROTEST. If you want to see democracy in action, include the option for a protest vote where a certain percentage (to be determined) invalidates all the candidates and you'll see voting in record numbers!
That's another reason why we should use Score Voting instead of IRV. You give a score to each candidate, independent of the others. If you hate all of the candidates, you can give all of them a big fat zero, and your vote will be counted and those zeros will be displayed in the tallies of how much support each candidate got.
Rank choice insures the most favored doesn't win. If you have four candidates and Bob gets the most 1st place votes at 30 percent but Cindy is everyone's second place vote, Cindy wins.
It ensures the candidate who is most-acceptable to the most people wins, which is certainly better than the candidate who is most-acceptable to a small percentage, who is hated by the rest, winning.
I believe that RCV only kicks in with no one gets at least 50% of first choice votes. So if Candidate X receives 43% and Candidate Y receives 43%, Candidate Z receives 14%, this would be a RCV situation. If Candidate Y is the second choice of more Voters who voted for Candidate Z as their first choice, then Candidate Y is the winner. IE, if I can't have my preferred candidate, I'll settle for this one as second choice (and third, etc.) Of course, voters also have the right to ignore the second and third choices on their ballots in effect opting out of RCV. Is this correct? If so, it would seem to be quite valuable as the winner would more closely reflect voter sentiment. It would be interesting to know the margin of second choice votes by which a candidate was elected. This would certainly be something the pundits would discuss ad nauseum. With all that said, it must be admitted that a second choice is probably considered less of an evil than the non-choice(?)
Doesn't make sense. Do you mean that all the 1st choice votes get tallied, and held? Then if your 1st choice is not the 1st winner, your vote is pulled and applied to your 2nd choice, Then all votes tallied again? Sounds like an NBA draft. Lol.
A good description, but perhaps more fair to compare to a top-two primary system. Two rounds of voting is "easier" on voters because they will focus their attention on the final two candidates for their final vote. Also, one ballot RCV risks losing your vote, if you fail to rank between the final two candidates in the runoff process, and this is more likely if there are a dozen or more choices running. If there are just 4 candidates running, RCV in one election is fine. But if there are more than 4 candidates, having a RCV primary is valuable, and you can set a threshold of viability rather than just top-2, like 20% of the vote in the primary, and all candidates above 20% deserve equal access to debates. You can also lose your vote in a 20% primary, but you'll know you only need to rank deeply enough to get ONE preference above the 20% threshold, compared to 50% threshold needed in one election to pick a winner. A RCV primary in fact takes away the need for undemocratic party primaries, and while parties can endorse a candidate, or even two candidates, an open RCV primary lets ALL voters decide who moves forward. It could be done right now (2020) for president, and we could skip these Democratic primaries and let everyone run, and 20% threshold might allow 2 or 3 diverse rivals to Trump to stay in the election and compete in a RCV general election. Unfortunately presidents have 50 state elections for the general, but the primary could be a single national vote.
But 40% of voters now consider themselves independent. So the illustration around 1 min and 45 secs is not an accurate representation of the electorate. What if there was an Independent 3rd party that could keep both existing parties honest and capture the majority of the 40% of voters who now consider themselves independent???
I'd love you to ask trump supporters who they'd put as #2 or 3. I can guarantee you they'd put him as 1 and leave the rest blank. Same with hardcore democrats. Then you'll have some independents who actually put a 2nd/3rd and others who don't. The system is a great IDEA but in practice it would never yield accurate results
I can't support ranked choice voting because it doesn't fix the underlying problem with the REELECTION CAMPAIGN. The reelection campaign is at the core of every problem in Washington.
But still the problem is getting your vote to count Or Keeping the parties from cheating or destroying ballots. I don't get this. I don't see it as a solution. Who came up with this idea?
Ranked Choice Voting is unfair since it ranks the voters based on how they rank candidates. Each ballot should be treated equally, yet this system deals with the voters who chose as first the candidate who just happened to garnish the fewest votes differently than the ballots of all the other voters. In order to rank all voters equally, if a second choice is counted due to a lack of 51% then ALL ballots should reflect their second choice, not only some of them, meaning even the the last place could end up being the winner. Stick with a plurality.
Isn't it obvious the way to at least partially address the third candidate split vote conundrum is to have two additional candidates - one left of Democrats and another left of Republicans. That way they cancel each other out. Ranked choice is by far the better option - but how do you get in implemented? See possible approach below. . . . Is the approach suggested by RepresentUS quick enough? Is it even possible with the entrenched gerrymandering. I am Australian so perhaps don't fully understand the US system but if I was going to attempt change I would arrange for two new presidential candidates, independent of the current parties. One to the left of the Democrats (say call a new Democrat) and the other to the left of the Republicans (say called a new Republican). The candidates perhaps sit closer to where the two parties were decades ago. While they wouldn't agree on many policies, they would both agree on the imperative of democratic reform and commit to the passing of an anti-corruption / voting reform bill such as bill proposed in the video (and other agreed reforms) at the earliest possible time as their top priority over everything else. And also agree to the two election strategy outlined in this post. Both candidates would campaign hard on the reform mandate. The first presidential election if they both managed to pick up 10% of the vote (Nader got 10% didn't he?) neither are going to be elected and one of the two traditional party presidential nominees is still going to succeed. Which is sad and bad but that is not where it ends. Now both the new candidates talk to their old party counterparts and tell them if they adopt reform agenda as the first priority after the next election (or before if they are in government) then they will not run against them in the next election. So say the Democrat candidate lost. They negotiate with the new Democrat candidate and agree to implement the democratic reform and some of the associated policies as soon as elected at the next election. (Including removing the filibuster/super majority if necessary.) Assuming the Republican President did not negotiate with the new Republicans then at the next election the Republican would be competing against the new Republican (who has agreed with the strategy and must run again) and the Democrats candidate. The new Republican candidate takes away 10% of the Republican vote, the Democrat regain the votes from the new Democrat who is not running. Therefore the Democrats win and have to introduce the democratic reforms agreed to with the new Democrat. If neither of the old parties negotiate both candidates run the next election, hopefully improving their position more and giving an even better negotiation position. (Or possibly win!) In conjunction with this there has to be state based approach to get candidates who agree with the voting / corruption reform elected in the primaries. Each supported candidate would have to agree with voting /corruption reform and be willing to cross the aisle if necessary to get this approved. The candidates are members of the old parties but publicly support and advocate for voting and corruption reform (Must have reform candidates for both parties. I wouldn't try to establish new Democrat or new Republican Parties in the states.) There has to be an organisational structure to organise, support and implement this, and some money behind it. A suggestion from an outsider who is not an expert on the American political system. 🙂
Ranked voting massively reduces the need for tactical voting but Approval pretty much obliges you to vote tactically. Do you vote just for your favourite or risk harming them by voting for your lesser evil as well?
RCV doesn't solve what's claimed. RCV entrenches the two parties (Duverger's Law). "Approval Voting" tears down the two party system. Easily, cheaply, obviously. AV eliminates "lesser of evils", "fear of wasted vote", "favorite betrayal" strategies. EC, RCV, IRV are complex distractions that don't solve the two party problem. Vote for all approved candidates, the highest count wins; Same old ballots, same counting machines. Just better. It's how you'd select restaurants, outfits, vacations, any election seeking the widest satisfaction from multiple options is "Approval Voting".
I'm still surprised that these non-academic reform groups (like Wolfpac and Represent) continue to avoid academic work. The reforms they propose have little if any data to support them. Often times it is just the opposite. The only 'academic' work in favor of term-limits for example is by a tobacco shill published by the Mercatus Center. Since 2016 we have worked on a 'fix' for campaign finance and partisanship that has not just been proven to work, but has been discussed by academics (and supported by the Framers of the Constitution) for decades. The trouble is the idea isn't sexy. It entails reversing the 1970 Legislative Reorganization Act. This is a law that most academics aren't even familiar with. Simply put it opened committees to the public. But the public that came storming in were the corporate lobbyists. And the data on this transition is jarring. By enabling lobbyists, both campaign finance and corporate lobbying exploded. And has been on a steady and steep rise ever since (Citizens United is just a blip of a data point in the middle). We spoke about this reform last year at Represent dot US. It was supported (even in the live video) by Larry Lessig. It got a fantastic review from the crowd. But the bigwigs at organizations like Represent, Wolfpac and Unite continue to push for unproven work that receives little to no support from anyone who actually churns the data. So I'll repeat, if we can reverse the 1970 LRA, we expect immediate drops in lobbying, campaign finance, partisanship, etc. This conclusion appears readily in the data and the work of hundreds of academics. So why? why? why? do these orgs continue to ignore it?
RCV is not cool and doesn't solve what's claimed. RCV entrenches the two parties (Duverger's Law). "Approval Voting" tears down the two party system. Easily, cheaply, obviously. AV eliminates "lesser of evils", "fear of wasted vote", "favorite betrayal" strategies. EC, RCV, IRV are complex distractions that don't solve the two party problem. Vote for all approved candidates, the highest count wins; Same old ballots, same counting machines. Just better. It's how you'd select restaurants, outfits, vacations, any election seeking the widest satisfaction from multiple options is "Approval Voting".
RCV doesn't solve what's claimed. RCV entrenches the two parties (Duverger's Law). "Approval Voting" tears down the two party system. Easily, cheaply, obviously. AV eliminates "lesser of evils", "fear of wasted vote", "favorite betrayal" strategies. EC, RCV, IRV are complex distractions that don't solve the two party problem. Vote for all approved candidates, the highest count wins; Same old ballots, same counting machines. Just better. It's how you'd select restaurants, outfits, vacations, any election seeking the widest satisfaction from multiple options is "Approval Voting".
RCV does share some of the issues of FPTP, although it is still an improvement. It's definitely not the best replacement for FPTP. You're correct that approval voting is certainly better, and has the added benefit of being easy to combine votes across states for purposes of presidential elections.
Ok, I dont see how this would fix anything. In the end those votes would still go to trump, and this breaks our two party system in what way? let say you have four candidates the independs never win so those votes would still go to the party your registered under. As in if you vote conservatives you will vote republican, still dont see how this fixes anything.
The idea is that independents would have a better chance to build their base and 3rd parties would have a better chance to win. They would have a chance because there would cease to be a spoiler effect. IF you are more mild of a conservative you might vote for someone more in the middle but you HATE democrats and you know that a 3rd party vote just helps the democrats as you split the votes amongst your party(as explained in the video). But with this new strategy, as a voter you feel your choice matters more and you are less afraid to vote for a 3rd party or other such people because even if they lose your vote still goes tot he person you preferred most among the remaining options.
@ 0:55 … This doesn't add up. 33+29+48≠100. Then @ 1:06 it does add up, but the numbers have changed. 45+7+48=100. Yep... Seems like the USA's voting system alright. LOL! In fact, just like in the USA's elections, you made no distinction between those wanting to vote AGAINST the "right wing" candidate and those wanting to honestly vote FOR the "left wing" candidate, nor have you made any distinction between those wanting to vote AGAINST the "left wing" candidate and those wanting to honestly vote FOR the "right wing" candidate. Add that distinction, let people vote honestly, and your spoiler effect is almost completely eliminated due to the added balance in the system. Add to that a change to a balanced ranked choice voting system, or better yet a balanced approval voting system, or better yet a balanced range voting system, and you've got yourself a pretty good way of counting the true intentions of the voters.
I'm only the 3rd commenter because of the spoiler effect on a serious note we need something like this in the UK too, I don't want the limited choice of a left wing zealot, a right wing supervillian or a hopeless 3rd party thanks
Scotland and Ireland already have Mixed Member Proportional, which is even more representative of votes than Ranked Choice. It's just not yet used in Westminster.
Evdog Music And when most of the country is centralised in Westminster that's a problem. Especially when the conservatives got 51% of the seats in Parliament with a mere 37% of the national vote in 2015.
IRV also has the spoiler effect. Look it up. Technically, it fails the favorite betrayal condition. Voting for your favorite in second position can sometimes help them. That's absurd. Lookup Approval Voting.
@@crcurran If you vote honestly for A > B > C, you take too many votes away from B and the greater of two evils C wins. If you vote tactically for B > A > C, the lesser of two evils B wins. It's the same as our current system.
@@eyescreamcake It sounds like you are describing what we have now. That's not describing Ranked Choice Voting. In RCV, if A has lowest total vote count between A, B, & C in the first round, A is removed and all of those voters who put A as first have their votes go to the second on their list on the ballot. Some of those ballots will have B as second and some will have C. If someone did not put a second choice THEN their ballot is discard with no further bearing on the election. The second round is calculated using those new totals for B and C. If C should have the largest total then that is what the majority wants and the same if B has the largest total exceeding 50%. There is no spoiler effect that I can see. Please explain in detail how you think there is spoiler effect that matches or even comes close to First-Past-the-Post. You likely don't understand how Ranked Choice Voting functions. Countries have been using it since the 19th century. It's not new.
@@crcurran Yes, it's basically the same as what we have now. That's why we're all opposed to it. Everyone pushes "RCV" without understanding how it actually works. "A is removed and all of those voters who put A as first have their votes go to the second on their list on the ballot" This is only true in contrived scenarios where their second choice is still in the running. In reality, "RCV" only counts first preferences in each round when deciding who to eliminate, so if you vote A > B > C, you can take enough first-choice votes away from B that B gets eliminated _first_. Your preference for B > C is never counted, and C beats A in the next round. If you had voted dishonestly for B > A > C, your first choice A would be eliminated, and then B would beat C. It's the same trade-off you need to make under our current system, because of the broken way that "RCV" eliminates candidates. "You likely don't understand how Ranked Choice Voting functions." I understand it better than most people who advocate it. "Countries have been using it since the 19th century. It's not new." Yes, it's ancient broken garbage. Condorcet considered this method as early as 1788 but immediately recognized its problems and dismissed it. Yet somehow it has become the only "reform" that Americans are even aware of. It boggles my mind that no one takes the time to actually understand the things they promote.
@@eyescreamcake "so if you vote A > B > C, you can take enough first-choice votes away from B that B gets eliminated _first_. " That's only true if it is one of the last in the list to garnish votes and if that's the case C will likely already have far more votes. "Your preference for B > C is never counted, and C beats A in the next round. " Again only if B is counted as the lowest of the three. People should get their second choice over the masses second choice. RCV is superior to what we have now. I can vote for parties other then duopoly parties of Dems and Repubs. Do you have better? Tell us what it is. Convince us of that instead of just deprecating on what you don't like. If you suggest we shouldn't waste our time changing to anything since there isn't anything superior well then you will have revealed a great deal.
Yes, but then after the results are revealed, we get to see how much votes the smaller parties would get. Then over many election cycles, the bigger parties need to start paying more attention to the smaller parties or risk being overtaken. They probably will not but the bigger parties need to incorporate policies from the smaller parties in order to guarantee staying in power. This in turn makes everyone's views more represented.
Some parties don't get enough votes to matter. Others don't get enough votes, because most people (correctly) are afraid of splitting the vote. FPTP voting is locking us into the two-party system. RCV is an improvement, but still has some of the same flaws. Other systems are simple and more effective, like approval voting.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
That "Uhghghghg" sound when describing this election cycle hit me right in the feels.
ASMR
Independents are now the largest “party”
Which is why we need Approval Voting. RCV also suffers from Duverger's Law (mathematically enforced Two-Party System)
Yes, but we still have two parties. RCV doesn't solve what's claimed. RCV entrenches the two parties (Duverger's Law). "Approval Voting" tears down the two party system. Easily, cheaply, obviously. AV eliminates "lesser of evils", "fear of wasted vote", "favorite betrayal" strategies. EC, RCV, IRV are complex distractions that don't solve the two party problem. Vote for all approved candidates, the highest count wins; Same old ballots, same counting machines. Just better. It's how you'd select restaurants, outfits, vacations, any election seeking the widest satisfaction from multiple options is "Approval Voting".
2020: lets do 2016 worse this time
Yeeep, we are screwed.
If we can get Rank Choice Voting in all states before 2024 then we'd have a better chance.
@@madden8021
“Ranked choice voting” will plunge The United States of America into a one party system that will ultimately lead to America’s sovereignty being dissolved and absorbed into a globalist communist dystopian nightmare
they could really use it now with Bernie, Biden and Trump. seriously, the american election system is embarrassing
RCV has an even worse spoiler effect than our current method. Trump would have almost definitely won under RCV. If you study the math behind it you'll realise RCV is NOT the better voting method we need.
@@alanivar2752 why is that? genuinely curious but I haven’t seen anything that would mean RCV is bad.
@@joshdemay9130 Good question, it's because it fails the Favorite Betrayal Criterion (m.ruclips.net/video/JtKAScORevQ/видео.html), which is a Spoiler Effect. It happens more than you'd want, in Australia and Ireland, and more recently Maine, and happened in not less than a few of these places: (electionscience.org/library/irv-repealed/)
@@alanivar2752 Its only spoiler effect if you equate all parties to the most popular ones. Third parties in US have very different views from the duopoly.
@@plankalkulcompiler9468 Yes! The Two-Party Disaster. Damn Duverger's Law, unfortunately IRV also fails this. Approval Voting, however, is the way to go if we want more, and more diverse, parties
first
also second and third, because ranked choice voting
This comment speaks to us on a spiritual level
lol
why not just have a 75% criteria for all candidates. sounds fair.
What do you mean by a 75% criterion. Do you mean a 75% quota because once one candidate reaches a 50% quota, they are guaranteed to hit a 75% quota because no candidate can be eliminated after hitting a 50% quota. Thus changing IRV's quota from 50% to 75% would not fix any of IRV's problems
The problem with IRV is that good candidates are eliminated early on, so the only way to fix IRV is to
1.
change how candidates are eleminated
(like Nalson's Method en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanson%27s_method
or Schulze Method en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanson%27s_method)
2.
use a completely different way to find a winner that does not require multiple elimination rounds
(like Minimax en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimax_Condorcet
or Ranked Pairs en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_pairs)
3.
change everything and even use a new ballot type
(like Majority Judgement en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_judgment
or Approval en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_judgment)
In all three cases, you will end up creating a voting system that is distinctly not IRV
"STAR Voting" Method is the best voting method (Equality, Accuracy, Honesty, Expressiveness and Simplicity.
Another great voting method: "Approval Voting" (Simple and Accurate).
"RCV (IRV)" is an improvement over the current "pick-one" voting method.
Well done RepresentUs. "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Albert Einstein
You cannot copyright fake anything just as an FYI.
BrainyQuote.com Copyright © 2001 - 2017
"The oppinion of 10.000 men is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject." Marcus Aurelius
Of course you still have to protect the vote, end voter suppression, have publicly financed elections, have elections take place only on paper, and take place over several days, institute immediate registration, ensure that candidates get equal time in media and debates, etc etc.
"ensure that candidates get equal time in media and debates"
Brazil does that. 90% are joke candidates.
A clown was actually elected once (to senate or something). He attended more meetings than anyone else had done before
Frito if the people would prefer some random person over the available candidates that's their choice. Frankly, we'd be better off selecting congress by lottery (much like a draft or jury duty) than our current system (even though that's a pretty poor method of selection), so I don't really see people having an out if they're too disgusted with the "real" choices presented to the as 100% a bad thing.
Look up the proposed model legislation (American anti-corruption act). It does most of that stuff you mention already
The electoral college makes the vote for president more complex, to say the least.
Either way, great video! BTW, obligatory shout-out to CGP GREY!!!
Non necessarily. If RCV is implemented in the state level, the party of the top choice would still get to send their electors to the electoral college and they can cast a vote for their candidate. A third party or dark horse candidate can be elected if enuf of the state RCV proclaims the same candidate as President
@@drummerdave4689 No, DON'T sign that. RCV is not a better alternative to our current system. Not only does it have literally 0 advantages over our current system, it makes the Spoiler Effect much more frequent. We need a new Voting Method, but RCV will only make things much worse than they already are now.
@@alanivar2752 How does it make it worse? And which voting method do you suggest we use?
@@zacharyarons6950 (To answer your 2nd question 1st: Approval Voting)
Let's first look at the issues with the way we vote now: Most Election Reform experts agree that 3 of the biggest issues are Duverger's Law (mathematically-enforced Two-Party Disaster), Gerrymandering, and some say worst of all, the Spoiler Effect.
IRV does nothing to fix the first two problems. Even IRV advocates concede that pretty much the only thing IRV has over First-Past-the-Post is how it fixes Vote Splitting. But this is not true, it merely does it differently. The Favorite Betrayal Criterion (m.ruclips.net/video/JtKAScORevQ/видео.html 3:34) is like the Spoiler Effect on steroids, and is more prevalent than Vote Splitting today, as seen in Australia and Ireland, (and tragically, soon in Alaska and Maine), places where voters hate their IRV Voting Method as much as much as Americans hate FPTP.
Approval Voting is not affected by Duverger's Law, disincetivises gerrymandering by making it often ineffective, or even backfire, and is truly immune from the Spoiler Effect.
Monotonicity: IRV fails the Monotonicity Criterion, which breaks down to, you can harm a candidate by giving them a higher ranking or help a candidate by ranking them lower. The claim that you are ENCOURAGED to rank candidates in order of preference is simply a lie, and for me personally, that's a broken system that deserves no place in a democracy.
Participation: IRV fails the Participation Criterion. Yup, you can literally help your preferred candidates by just staying home. Any Voting Method that disincentivises voting is awful in my book. (Even plurality doesn't screw up THIS bad!)
Now, the following aren't so much 'Why not IRV' as they are 'Why Approval'. They're just bonus things to stack up on top of its awesomeness
Majority-Winner: A Majority-Winner is defined as any candidate that is 50%+1 of the electorate's #1 choice, and the Majority-Winner Criterion asks whether, assuming such a candidate exists, that candidate is guaranteed to win. IRV eliminates candidates even until whole ballots are exhauated. 20% of ballots could have all their candidates eliminated, but if 40%+1 of voters pick somebody, they will claim 'majority!' Approval Voting guarantees a Majority-Winner, whenever such a candidate exists...EXCLUDING highly polarising candidates, which can still be beaten by a more widely popular candidate who may not be most people's first or even second choice
Wasted Votes: In Approval Voting, you never have to 'waste your vote'. You can safely vote with both your heart, and your head, selecting candidates you like, but if they're unpopular, also a vote for a candidate with a better chance of success
Negative Campaigning: In Allocative Voting Methods, like our current method, candidates are fighting for the same vote. In Comparative methods, like IRV, candidates are competing for a higher rank. But in Evaluative methods, like Approval, who else a voter votes for usually doesn't impact whether or not they vote for you. If you can visualise, status quo and IRV both would use a pie chart, because every voter backs only a single candidate at a time, but Approval would have to use a bar graph, each candidate showing their support from 0%-100% irrespective of other candidates bars
While obviously no voting method is capable of ending negative campaigning, Approval Voting disincentivises bringing down opponents, rather than building yourself up, because you are voted on independently from This allows people to Vote on Policy, Not on Personality
Proportional-ish: IRV's multi-seat variant, STV, claims proportionality. Which it does pretty well when there isn't a Spoiler handing 2/3 seats in a district to a candidate with only 25% support. While proportionality is often represented by its successes, such as Denmark, we should also look at where it has failed atrociously, such as Guyana where it is almost single-handedly responsible for a literal decades long race war between the descendants of (India) Indian servants, 40% of the population, and African slaves, 30% of the population, the two largest parties being based on little more than race. Thus, I'd argue that while Voting Systems with proportionality as an OUTCOME are awesome, ones with it as a GOAL aren't all they're cracked up to be. When you increase the number and decrease the size of districts for a body like a legislature or School Board, you expect the seats to get closer to proportional, but with Approval Voting doing so fosters proportionality almost exponentially. Approval Voting is not proportional, but it IS proportional-ish
On a personal note, while what we define as 'democratic' is subjective, (at least unless a supercomputer wants to butt in and give an objectively best system), to me as a voter, I define it most as Sincere Voting in the context of Voting Methods. With Approval Voting, you are ALWAYS encouraged to vote for your #1 choice. There is NEVER a reason to Approve your 4th-favorite candidate without also Approving your 3rd. You just can't say the same with Ranking, and definitely not with FPTP. In Approval, the closest you come to needing a strategy is deciding where to draw the line between candidates good enough to approve and candidates to not endorse
Ultimately, we could very likely have just one shot to fix the way we vote. If we oversell Voting Method Reform, and then give people freakin IRV, people will get burned. So while I will be fine if by the time this gets to the state and federal level we aren't using my favorite Voting Method, I at least hope it's any one of the dozens of better choices than IRV
Local polling: Local independent polling (with an intentional oversampling of Spanish-speaking and retired voters) showed that Denverites (where I live) don't like IRV and it likely wouldn't pass on the ballot, but Approval appeals to us and stands a good shot at passing this fall. This follows national patterns: Fargo and St. Louis both supported Approval Voting with well over 60% of the vote. Alaska and Maine just barely squeaked by 50%, and they're not exactly states known for civilian representation. Massachusetts flat out squashed it. Not to mention IRV is expensive and would require a bunch of new laws to be passed
TL;DR IRV is an archaic and outdated Voting Method that devolves into FPTP, only works for small towns/states (Telluride, CO; Alaska; Maine) but fails in larger governments (Cary, NC; Pierce County, WA; Massachusettes), and assumes a significant percentage of, let alone every last voter, wants to deeply contemplate whether they like their 4th or 5th candidate better or if they should swap them, or how to break ties, etc. We need a BETER Voting Method, not just a new one. We can't just pick the first one we learn about or that has the biggest advertising budget
As a final note, I want to leave you with something I remind everybody of. RCV is arbitrary in every piece of its being. Approval Voting, any Homo habilis could immediately reverse engineer our thought process, why it is the way it is and why we like it, Grog like 'good or bad each option'. Same with plurality, as bad as it otherwise is, was designed (I'm sure unintentionally, and thus why it does such a poor job) to reflect a reality: what most people most want to choose. RCV, specifically the 'eliminate biggest loser go on to choice 2' section was chosen seemingly at random. Why is it unimportant how the biggest loser would place in later rounds? If RCV is for people that care about showing how much they support somebody, why are there mandatory '1' intervals and not individual scoring? As numbers are naturally logarithmic, how does RCV justify its linear nature? And so on. RCV is clearly, at best, half-baked. At worst it's intentionally maliciously designed to be just complicated enough to seem 'well thought out' and just simple enough for voters to 'get' how it works, but not why or how this affects the system as a whole.
Not only is its design random, the way it comes to a conclusion is as well. It's just a pseudo-random algorithm designed to appear like a complicated, intelligent process and 'Wow' anybody with less than a college sophomore understanding of math. To those familiar, it's a blatant trick, an ugly façade, dare I say, an insidious plot, to neatly and quietly sweep any that don't support the two established parties into either tent, which?, doesn't matter to them. Denver is only an early stop on the Approval Voting train. But make no mistake, while these kind of things must begin at the municipal level, we plan to disrupt the undemocratic status quo at state and federal government. Follow the Money: With their role as Good Cop and Bad Cop (but both still cops!) for Wall Street, the Democratic and Republican parties assume their roles in publicly supporting/opposing Ranked-Choice Voting, this alleged change, this fake reform. An illusion to waste the democracy reform movement's time, money, energy, what does it matter to them? The strongest bipartisan issue in history is keeping the system bipartisan.
U r an idio t u probably believe in man made global warming and want to driv an electric car now learn how electoral college really works giving less populated areas of the country the same voting power as big cities and that's the truth. God help us sorry u probably sont believe in Jesus neither but will still pray 4 u..
watching this in 2020 and it’s only gotten worse
And the worst part is that the popular vote does not make the ultimate decision over the Electoral College. We literally have Representatives electing other Representatives. We literally have no voice in are at the mercy of our government.
This sounds great, I love Rank Choice voting, on top of that, stop gerrymandering, add term limits, and put the Anti-Corruption Act into place.
Don't forget. What we need to do is get rid of the Electoral College too and nationally and directly elect the President of the United States 🇺🇲 using EXACTLY what is explained in this video!
But let's assume 50 of Americans vote as their first choice for president a and as second president b, and the other half the other way around. Which votes are discarded first?
You can't do ranked voting with just two candidates, your question seems to imply that you didn't understand that.
Typically you flip a coin and eliminate one at random.
"Everyone gets one vote, and the person with the most votes wins.".
That's incorrect
Unless my closed-source voting machines can stop that
they just explain it that way for the sake of simplicity. everyone watching this understands that it's the electoral college that actually votes, not the individuals
Excellent, clear and informative video. Nice work!!
The idea is nice and it might be a step in the right direction, but the problem is two party dominance. RCV in Australia has done little to actually curb this. With only 2 parties that can win, they are more easily bought by interest groups.
The solution is to switch to a voting system in which each vote counts with equal influence over the result, in the sense that for every possible vote, there is another possible vote that will exactly cancel it. The simplest system that has this characteristic is Approval Voting.
ruclips.net/video/bleyX4oMCgM/видео.html
Approval voting is simpler and eliminates the spoiler effect more than RCV.
@@williamwaugh8670 in other words, all information (voter preference) is applied immediately. RCV presents complex strategies in which voters vote against their own preferences.
Suppose I prefer Green but believe Blue is more likely to win, I would rank Blue second, expecting the vote to be counted in runoff. However, if Green performs well, my Blue vote will never be counted, and Orange may win who would have lost in Plurality against Blue.
In Plurality voting, voters usually understand and avoid the spoiler effect. RCV creates unexpected spoiler effects.
@@n8thal718 Australia still has two-party dominance, does it not?
RCV doesn't solve what's claimed. RCV entrenches the two parties (Duverger's Law). "Approval Voting" tears down the two party system. Easily, cheaply, obviously. AV eliminates "lesser of evils", "fear of wasted vote", "favorite betrayal" strategies. EC, RCV, IRV are complex distractions that don't solve the two party problem. Vote for all approved candidates, the highest count wins; Same old ballots, same counting machines. Just better. It's how you'd select restaurants, outfits, vacations, any election seeking the widest satisfaction from multiple options is "Approval Voting".
Approval voting is simpler and eliminates the spoiler effect more than RCV.
This is true! I wish we would stop focusing so much on RCV when there are better options like approval voting.
Don't social scientist mathematicians think that approval voting is better? Our current machines can do it already.
But, yes, this would be totally better than what we have.
Yes, but that that would take a much bigger overhaul than this. Baby steps.
@@stantrien8106 Approval would be much cheaper. Current voting machines can already do it.
I think you are describing Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) even though it isn't the only "ranked-choice voting". IRV does not give equal power to all voters. Consequently, some voters can game the system and have their way over the wishes of an equal or higher number of other voters who disagree with them. This difference in power leaves open a crack in the system, into which political money can insert its wedge, resulting in the rule of capital. Of course, the current choose-one plurality system has that problem, too (maybe even to a worse degree). A solution (and the simplest solution) is Approval Voting. In Approval Voting, the voter rates each candidate independently of the others, instead of trying to rank them. There are two ratings: approval and disapproval. The most-approved candidate wins.
@mighty mouse If people ant 40 congressman, they get 40 congressman. Do you want a dictatorship where only you win and everyone else get hung?
That's impractical, because most people would vote 10/10 on one candidate and 0/10 on other candidates. Most people aren't smart enough to rate everyone accurately. Ranked choice voting (more commonly known as Alternative Vote) is more practical and realistic. In a utopia, or maybe a small canton in Switzerland it may be possible but in a country as big as the US it can't work.
But that method still has a spoiler effect because if I want to vote Green, but think that the Dem has a better chance, then voting for the Dem hurts the candidate I actually want to win. With ranked-choice, I have given my candidate the best chance of winning without compromising the ability of the moderate Dem of winning.
@@kenofjustice212 No analysis I know of explains how to distinguish harmful inequality from a harmless inequality. Therefore, choosing a voting system that does not provide equality is not safe.
@@kenofjustice212 Assuming you face IRV, what are the circumstances that would induce you to reverse some of your preferences for strategy?
the ranked choice voting that is described her is called "instand run off" or if you are if you are more systematic about it "least popular elimination vote" there are tonnes of more ranked choice voting systems. Most of them are better. in fact I would classify IRV as the second worst (among those that are actually in discussion) only surpassed by first past the post. I am a bit upset, that IRV gets sell d as the alternative.
The alternative for ranked choice voting are off course score voting systems. And there is an argument, that those might be better than ranked choice.
That is for single winner election of course. For legislative bodies like the House of Representatives it is to be frank really fucking stupid to do a bunch of single winner election for each district with a ranked choice system.
If the media would talk about third party candidates like they do about the main two candidates for 24 hours straight, maybe a third party would have a chance. To say a ranked voting system would some how make you feel better for not voting for the lesser of two evils is irrelevant. One of the lesser of two evils will end up winning.
Who could possibly be against this?
People who realize there are better alternatives that won't be pursued because they would work too well.
The Man
Democrat and Republican insiders. Also a guy from the Heritage Foundation in a CNBC video because apparently a conservative group doesnt like a more open marketplace of ideas in elections.
Republicans and Democrats.
The people who would be the last choice
"as your back up" is a great catch phrase
It's actually been used successfully in local elections with ranked voting.
The powers behind the curtains like the illusion of the two party systems facilitating their machinations and puppetry.
And yet, here we are again...
Alaska has since, joined Maine in ranked choice voting.
Ranked Choice Voting does a great job appearing to do good while implementing evil. Its as interesting, perplexing, and appropriately comparable to how new Social Media reliably deteriorates social norms.
Explain how it doesn't work
@@dinosaurusrex1482 Fox News told him it was bad, therefore it’s bad. Duh
What ranked choice system are you talking about? Just "instand run of" (the one that is the one explained here) or do you include better methodes? If you include all ranked choice systems you have some explaining to do. But if your point is just that this topic is discussed on a way to superficial level. I would agree to that.
I like the idea of being able to vote against someone instead of voting for someone. So if you really hate candidate X, you just subtract a vote from them and don't add to anybody else's total.
Mothuzad Or, yknow, you could put a rank for every candidate EXCEPT the one you don't like. that way, no matter who it comes down to, you're voting against them.
Sure, in a ranked voting system, that works. As long as you have enough ranks for all the candidates except one. The example in the video doesn't show this as a possibility though.
I wasn't talking about ranked voting though. Rather, I mentioned another alternative system that would also make mudslinging ineffective.
I can see why talking about other improvements over the current system would be counterproductive though. The last thing we need is infighting about which kind of improvements we need to make. As long as we can reasonable believe that our current plan is viable, we should just support each other. If the current proposal is broken, only then would it be worthwhile to come up with alternatives.
Balanced Approval Voting!
It IS the corrupt establishment don't let him kid you
How is RCV votes tallied though? How do we know what makes the vote chose my 2nd instead of 1st choice?
Great question. Your 2nd choice would only be counted if your first choice candidate was eliminated!
@@RepresentUs and what percentage of having the vote or not would qualify as eliminated. What if The first place candidate has 40% of the vote, and then everyone had as their 2nd pick a person with 60% of the vote?
What if then, half of the votes for the 2nd pick, were actually the 2nd pick to people who had the 1st place person.
That could create an issue of exactly what and when you would eliminate the 1st place candidate?
In this example if you never eliminated the first place person, they would have 40% and the second place would have 30%. But if you decided to eliminate them the 2nd place person would then get half of those votes and they would have 60%
Given what we know about how people like to game political systems, i feel like there are way to many unknowns at this point, and could end up being abused even worse than our current system.
@@ScottM508 "what percentage of having the vote or not would qualify as eliminated"
Answer: The candidate with the LOWEST number of 1st choice votes. There is no ambiguity or unknowns with this form of elimination selection criteria.
Longer answer: (Aggregate Phase) They take all of the votes and put them into 'piles' based on their top choice. (Eliminate And Re-distribute Phase) Whichever pile is the smallest gets the votes redistributed to their next choices (imagine crossing out the top choice on all of those votes). Then repeat both phases. Eventually, one of the piles will be more than 50%, at which point you stop and declare them the winner.
It's quite simple and unambiguous.
@@RepresentUs That's only true if your 2nd choice is still in the race. If you vote A > B > C, and B is eliminated first, your preference for B > C is discarded, meaning some voters get more of a voice than others. In fact, it's possible that the majority of voters express B > C on their ballots and C still wins.
This is a junk voting system and you should stop spreading these myths about it and start promoting something better.
Ranked Ballots still marginalize 3rd parties, but proportional representation gives everyone actual representation.
This might work but I need to research the rating/ star system and see how it compares. Another thing that might work is a multi party system. See JJ McCulloughs video for more information.
Star is better a representing people's preferences than RCV. But RCV is a start.
Liberal, not progressive. Just because they stole that tag doesn't mean they are in any way like that. Just like conservatives should have lost that tag under Bush.
BTW on the surface this does appear like a really strong helpful set up. I would need to hear other sides and weigh in on this. But yea. I agree so far that this is a very good implementation. As a Christian Conservative who is maga I would still love the push this would give other more Conservative parties.
It might even lead to breaking down this two party system which is a good thing. And yes it would also equally help liberals and everyone. I think.. Again. We need to look at this but openly discuss it.
This system will making vote counting costly and time consuming especially when voters are in millions and vote through ballot paper(countries like america)
There's an evolution to Preferential Voting advocacy.
1. You learn about the flaws of plurality/FPTP voting (Duverger's Law) and search for a solution.
2. You discover Ranked Choice Voting, "THIS IS IT! Let's create a RUclips video"
I went through exactly the same process. I was an IRV advocate only 5 months ago.
I highly recommend watching a RUclips video on the flaws of Instant Runoff (a.k.a. Alternative Vote) instead of reading my explanation below.
So for people that don't understand why IRV requires strategic voting, let's say there are three candidates on a spectrum (A B C). Your preferred order of the candidates is A > B > C. So that's how you and everyone like you ranks them. In the calculation phase no one has a majority and candidate B (your second choice) had the fewest 1st choice votes so they are eliminated and their ballots go to the marked second choice. The majority of those B voters might not go to A, they might actually go to C, earning them a majority and your least favorite candidate would win. But if all the A voters had just voted for B in the first place B would have received a majority and your second choice would have won (which would have been a better outcome for you). This is why IRV still fails the Favorite Betrayal criterion. You cannot just vote your favorite, you still must strategically vote. Range (a.k.a Score) Voting, Score Runoff Voting, and even Approval Voting are better systems, although some people argue that Approval voting will result in inoffensive milquetoast leaders...which may or may not be a good thing. Some people also argue that Range voting just results in (due to the propensity to strategically vote "max for favorite, min for everyone else") Approval Voting anyway.
tl;dr - Score Runoff (look it up at equal.vote)
Would a two round election with the first round being IRV and the second round being first past the post fix the spoiler effect problem? We already have a two round system in CA and it seems like IRV would do a lot to allow smaller parties a chance in the general election.
Republican vs Green, Democrat vs Libertarian, or Green vs Libertarian seems likely to happen and preferable to the two party (sometimes Dem vs Dem) runoffs we have currently and a Republican vs Libertarian seems very unlikely.
I'm genuinely curious though! It seems like you've thought about this a lot more than I have :)
Check out the Mathematical definition of the spoiler effect: "Possible mathematical definitions for the spoiler effect include failure of the independence of irrelevant alternatives (IIA) axiom, and vote splitting." That's the criterion you're looking for if you want to determine if there's a potential spoiler.
IRV violates the Favorite betrayal criterion (FBC) [A voter may be required to rank another candidate above their favorite in order to obtain a result they prefer]. A two phase election (1. IRV and 2. Plurality) doesn't solve that issue because the damage is already done in the IRV phase. In the scenario I describe above the "fringe" candidate (your favorite) got enough votes to kick out your second choice but loses to your least preferred candidate in the second phase. You (and the majority of people) would have preferred your second choice to your least favorite, but your candidate kicked them out. A score + plurality system (Score Runoff Voting) is what I was advocating for above. Score Voting satisfies the FBC.
I made it to step 6 (and, amusingly, went through steps 1-5 as described) but I'm not following steps 7 and after. I don't really get the "problem" mentioned with approval/range voting or its solution. I couldn't find anything on that combo method here on RUclips. I'll google the rest of the internet, but any suggestions?
I think the word "transfer" vote can be confusing. Rank choice voting moves to the next lower tier when the higher choices are not viable; moving down or stepping down in the voter's sequential selections. Say my 1st choice is not the majority, then my vote goes to my 2nd, if 2nd fails to get majority, then my 3rd choice moves up, and etc. My vote is not transferred to another voter, it moves progressively down my line of choices.
Only true if your 2nd choice is still in the race, which is why this is a broken voting system that no one should be advocating. There are much better options.
JoJo2020
#Taxationistheft
the best thing about this is that they are bringing Progressives and Conservatives together.
In practice it's only the progressives that support this though.
@@lagg3sbd394 I'm sure that libertarians would support it
@@lagg3sbd394 liberals as in the democrats do not nationally support this. Nor do the Conservatives/Republicans. But I think both could get on board but getting this officially past the dnc/Rnc.. hmmm good luck
Scored voting is better (basics is you score your candidate from one number to the other, you can score multiple canidates the same, theirs two ways to tally, you can either add up all the scores for each candidate or you can find the average score for each candidate my preferred system is scores are 0-10 0 being not supported 10 being very very supported, then you find the average for each candidate [rounding to the nearest hundredth] and the candidate with the highest avg score wins or in the case of filling multiple seats pick the canidates one by one starting with the highest average score to the lowest average score until the seats are filled)
For multiple seats, Reweighted Range Voting (RRV) would be more democratic.
Range voting would of course be much better than ranked choice voting, and balanced range voting is even better than that.
All range voting is inherently balanced.
What about cardinal systems like approval and scored voting? You can also do balanced versions (look up balanced/combined approval). Ranked voting with 3+ canidates break the arrows impossibility theorem and as such while better than FPTP are almost as flawed
What about the Dominion candidate ?
The particular form of RCV that is promoted does not provide equality and therefore won't defeat two-party dominance.
What happens when the person I like most is definitely eliminated and my vote goes to the back up person that I don't like but for some reason put #2? Then that person wins and I technically did vote for them. I'm genuinely asking, how does this stop the spoiler effect in a system that's already geared to elect one of two people, anyway?
You at least had a chance that you are not guilt-ridden over.
It is always better to go down swinging.
Why was instant runoff voting chosen as the ranked choice method? It's been proven to not select the most supported candidates when the 3rd party scores more than a token vote. There are other methods that more consistently elect a more supported candidate.
Been telling everyone this after visiting other countries. Look at New Zealand where you have direct proportional representation. That means if a party gets 10% of the votes than 10% of congress is from that party. Many countries do this. Not here so the 3rd, or 4th, 5th parties hardly ever win a seat. Once in a while an Independent wins a seat here because they were well-known, and that's it. However, I don't think ranked choice is the way. Washington state has a fake rank vote approach where only the top two from primaries make the final vote. In this state, that means now you only have one choice - Democrat A or B, but either way a Democrat.... It's crazy. The devil is in the details. We need multiple choices on the final ballot and give me proportional rep so that the government represents our diverse interests, not just Dems vs Repub.
Ranked Choice is great if we can guarantee the system. Also, there must be an option to NOT PLACE A SECONDARY VOTE. It's a question of ethics. If my options are "Vote for the Lesser of Two Evils by Default" or "Don't Vote for the lesser of Two Evils at All" I should have that option. It's a good option, one you could argue for as morally superior, but it's the same moral quandary of voting "Just to Vote". Ultimately, Jefferson had it right. To paraphrase 'no fewer than 7 parties'...
"Rank choice voting" (more accurately called instant runoff voting) is better than plurality voting, but it is still a pretty bad system that trends towards two parties. It also isn't safe to vote for your favorite. Well liked moderates can get squeezed out in favor of extremists that don't have broad support. If you have a hard left, moderate left, and moderate right candidate, voting for the hard left can eliminate the moderate left who may an easier time beating the moderate right. Order of elimination is very, very important.
Approval voting would be much better. It would be much easier to set up powerful voting blocs based on issues.
While approval has some advantages it is at the cost of forcing voters to think tactically. Do you stick with your first choice or risk your second choice wining by giving them a vote too. Condorcet-Schulze is the best method to incentivize sincere voting.
AMEN!
Unfortunately, IRV/RCV doesn't eliminate spoiler effects. It's still best to put your preferred of the two front-runners first, even if they aren't your honest favorite. Everywhere that uses IRV at the national level is still two-party dominated in their IRV seats.
If you want to actually solve the spoiler effect, try Approval voting, Score voting, or at least use a Condorcet method.
^Skyval Ream is right. Ranked-Choice is still flawed. Choose a better form of Preferential Voting.
My preferred method is Score Runoff (equal.vote).
Ranked-Choice Voting is non-monotonic and in many situations violates the Favorite Betrayal criterion.
There is reason to suspect Score Runoff Voting (SRV) may be better than normal Score, particularly if there would be a lot of one-sided strategy. But it does lose some nice properties.
For example Score Runoff actually also fails favorite betrayal and is nonmonotonic (EDIT: nevermind, it passes monotonicity), without gaining Later-No-Harm, though it might have a much better balance between them.
SRV can't be used on today's Plurality machines, unlike Score. I don't think it works as well with abstentions, but plain score works nicely. Score works nicely with apportionment, I don't think SRV can be used for that. Score also has a party-agnostic proportional variants (in the vein of STV), but I haven't seen a way to make SRV do that.
But it's great, might find better winners on average in practice, its logistics/externalities might not be much worse, and especially if it's more enactable, it's an excellent option.
"Its still best to put your preferred of the two front-runners first, even if they aren't your honest favorite"
How so?
I'm not an expert in "Bayesian Regret"/“Voter satisfaction efficiency”, but from what I understand SRV (Score + 2) has the lowest levels. Of course I would be absolutely fine with Range Voting as well. I merely think that SRV offers more easily understood "intuitive" (meaning they more closely match what we have currently) results than Range, even if the calculation phases are more complex. I also have 'faith' that the electorate can understand that Candidate A with 3.5 stars < Candidate C with 4.1 stars < Candidate B with 4.3 stars if we all agree Range Voting is the way to go.
I mean answer your question
This video is great right up until 2:16. "...lets you vote for any candidate you want without worrying about the spoiler effect." I think you guys need to go back and edit this video. There are a lot of reasons to support RCV if you choose to without citing false claims. It's a lot better than what we have but RCV (IRV specifically) doesn't solve the spoiler effect. It still has a major problem in elections with multiple viable candidates, exactly the scenario we are trying to create!
The issue boils down to the fact that when they tally RCV ballots they don't actually count all the rankings given. If your first choice is eliminated in a later round your other rankings may be gone already. This means that the rest of your ballot is ignored. Ignoring some peoples rankings but counting other people's is unfair and can lead to unrepresentative results.
There's a word for selling policy with false claims and press. Represent Us, you are the biggest national organization working on this issue. You can do better! Please make some corrections.
At 2:55 it says that "If Johnson doesn't win, your vote is automatically transferred to Trump." This is ONLY true IF Johnson is eliminated BEFORE Trump. It it happens the other way around your 2nd and 3rd choice votes are discarded uncounted. Wasted!
At 3:20 it says "You can vote your conscience without hurting your own interests" but this isn't always true either. In elections with 3 or more viable candidates voting honestly CAN backfire and sometimes it is best to vote lesser evil, just like we are pressured to do now. This has been documented in real world elections like the notorious Burlington, VT example that led to RCV's repeal.
3:36 "Maine just changed their statewide elections to RCV." I wish! It was voted in but found to be unconstitutional in Maine. This is being contested and it's yet to be implemented. I hope that Maine does listen to it's voters, but I also hope that those voters aren't supporting RCV based on the false claims above.
I think it makes sense that first choice votes matter more than second choice votes
IRV is a big improvement on plurality but it can produce odd results. No system is perfect but the Condorcet-Schulze method is as close to perfect as you can get when you want a single winner. But proportional voting is needed for legislatures unless you're fine with the two part duopoly.
I would much rather have approval vs elimination voting. If that moderate was acceptable to 60% of concervatives and 60% of progressives as well as their own 20%, we could have a candidate 80% of the population approves of vs 51.1vs 48.9. Much more unifying vs polarizing.
Ranked Choice Voting is not a small tweak, but a completely different voting system with a different counting process. Unless it includes the right to vote against, it's also not much better than what we have, although it is at least slightly better. Add in the right to vote against, which really is just a small tweak, and ranked choice voting becomes balanced ranked choice voting, which is way better, but even just the small tweak of adding the right to vote against a candidate would be a huge improvement, with or without completely changing the wy people vote and the way those votes are counted. The only changes needed to allow casting and counting of votes against a candidate are to list for and against options on the ballot, and subtract the votes cast against a candidate from the votes cast for that same candidate to get the candidate's effective net vote count, which shows how much more approval then disapproval has been expressed through voting with regard to the idea of electing that candidate.
@@NerdPirateRadio Why did you reply with a description of IRV? You have not either supported or opposed the right to vote against.
Someday I hope these guys have a breakthrough.
Ranked choice voting isn’t monotonic
STAR voting us superior.
Score Then Automatic Runoff.
Would the Anti-corruptuon act use Instant Runoff, or STV?
I'd rather have the choice to cast my vote as a protest vote: Choose one A,B,C, write in, or Protest! SO MANY MORE PEOPLE WOULD VOTE IF THEY HAD THE OPTION TO VOICE THEIR PROTEST. If you want to see democracy in action, include the option for a protest vote where a certain percentage (to be determined) invalidates all the candidates and you'll see voting in record numbers!
That's another reason why we should use Score Voting instead of IRV. You give a score to each candidate, independent of the others.
If you hate all of the candidates, you can give all of them a big fat zero, and your vote will be counted and those zeros will be displayed in the tallies of how much support each candidate got.
This can be instituted with any voting system. It's an orthogonal decision.
Rank choice insures the most favored doesn't win. If you have four candidates and Bob gets the most 1st place votes at 30 percent but Cindy is everyone's second place vote, Cindy wins.
It ensures the candidate who is most-acceptable to the most people wins, which is certainly better than the candidate who is most-acceptable to a small percentage, who is hated by the rest, winning.
In the single-winner context, readers who have heard of ranking systems should also know that rating systems are proposed as well.
I believe that RCV only kicks in with no one gets at least 50% of first choice votes. So if Candidate X receives 43% and Candidate Y receives 43%, Candidate Z receives 14%, this would be a RCV situation. If Candidate Y is the second choice of more Voters who voted for Candidate Z as their first choice, then Candidate Y is the winner. IE, if I can't have my preferred candidate, I'll settle for this one as second choice (and third, etc.) Of course, voters also have the right to ignore the second and third choices on their ballots in effect opting out of RCV. Is this correct? If so, it would seem to be quite valuable as the winner would more closely reflect voter sentiment. It would be interesting to know the margin of second choice votes by which a candidate was elected. This would certainly be something the pundits would discuss ad nauseum. With all that said, it must be admitted that a second choice is probably considered less of an evil than the non-choice(?)
Sounds good to me. Let's get this implemented.
I want to post a transcript on Facebook along with a link to this.
Remember to ask people to LIKE and SUBSCRIBE. Great video.
Doesn't make sense.
Do you mean that all the 1st choice votes get tallied, and held?
Then if your 1st choice is not the 1st winner, your vote is pulled and applied to your 2nd choice,
Then all votes tallied again?
Sounds like an NBA draft. Lol.
it kills your 1st vote and insures the one of the big 2 will always win
not exactly true
Thank you for the link
A good description, but perhaps more fair to compare to a top-two primary system. Two rounds of voting is "easier" on voters because they will focus their attention on the final two candidates for their final vote.
Also, one ballot RCV risks losing your vote, if you fail to rank between the final two candidates in the runoff process, and this is more likely if there are a dozen or more choices running.
If there are just 4 candidates running, RCV in one election is fine. But if there are more than 4 candidates, having a RCV primary is valuable, and you can set a threshold of viability rather than just top-2, like 20% of the vote in the primary, and all candidates above 20% deserve equal access to debates. You can also lose your vote in a 20% primary, but you'll know you only need to rank deeply enough to get ONE preference above the 20% threshold, compared to 50% threshold needed in one election to pick a winner.
A RCV primary in fact takes away the need for undemocratic party primaries, and while parties can endorse a candidate, or even two candidates, an open RCV primary lets ALL voters decide who moves forward.
It could be done right now (2020) for president, and we could skip these Democratic primaries and let everyone run, and 20% threshold might allow 2 or 3 diverse rivals to Trump to stay in the election and compete in a RCV general election. Unfortunately presidents have 50 state elections for the general, but the primary could be a single national vote.
But 40% of voters now consider themselves independent. So the illustration around 1 min and 45 secs is not an accurate representation of the electorate. What if there was an Independent 3rd party that could keep both existing parties honest and capture the majority of the 40% of voters who now consider themselves independent???
I'd love you to ask trump supporters who they'd put as #2 or 3. I can guarantee you they'd put him as 1 and leave the rest blank. Same with hardcore democrats. Then you'll have some independents who actually put a 2nd/3rd and others who don't. The system is a great IDEA but in practice it would never yield accurate results
DannyB Plays Tusli Gabbard as my #2 or even remove Mike Pence and have her be VP.
Why isn't the link in the description? It's Represent.us
I can't support ranked choice voting because it doesn't fix the underlying problem with the REELECTION CAMPAIGN. The reelection campaign is at the core of every problem in Washington.
Excellent! RCV is long overdue.
RCV is outdated and archaic. We can do better
And the winner gets a million dollar recording contract?
I'm questioning this organization now.
I'm wondering if we ate being manipulated.
Ranked voting only strengthens the Two Party Establishment.
ruclips.net/video/bleyX4oMCgM/видео.html
This organization is ignorant, but not evil. They also support Approval Voting, they just don't realize the problems with IRV.
But still the problem is getting your vote to count Or Keeping the parties from cheating or destroying ballots. I don't get this. I don't see it as a solution. Who came up with this idea?
Ranked Choice Voting is unfair since it ranks the voters based on how they rank candidates. Each ballot should be treated equally, yet this system deals with the voters who chose as first the candidate who just happened to garnish the fewest votes differently than the ballots of all the other voters. In order to rank all voters equally, if a second choice is counted due to a lack of 51% then ALL ballots should reflect their second choice, not only some of them, meaning even the the last place could end up being the winner. Stick with a plurality.
Why does it still have to be conservative/democrates though.
Because the real foundation of our electoral system is the corruption of Big Money.
Isn't it obvious the way to at least partially address the third candidate split vote conundrum is to have two additional candidates - one left of Democrats and another left of Republicans. That way they cancel each other out. Ranked choice is by far the better option - but how do you get in implemented? See possible approach below.
.
.
.
Is the approach suggested by RepresentUS quick enough? Is it even possible with the entrenched gerrymandering.
I am Australian so perhaps don't fully understand the US system but if I was going to attempt change I would arrange for two new presidential candidates, independent of the current parties. One to the left of the Democrats (say call a new Democrat) and the other to the left of the Republicans (say called a new Republican). The candidates perhaps sit closer to where the two parties were decades ago. While they wouldn't agree on many policies, they would both agree on the imperative of democratic reform and commit to the passing of an anti-corruption / voting reform bill such as bill proposed in the video (and other agreed reforms) at the earliest possible time as their top priority over everything else. And also agree to the two election strategy outlined in this post. Both candidates would campaign hard on the reform mandate. The first presidential election if they both managed to pick up 10% of the vote (Nader got 10% didn't he?) neither are going to be elected and one of the two traditional party presidential nominees is still going to succeed. Which is sad and bad but that is not where it ends. Now both the new candidates talk to their old party counterparts and tell them if they adopt reform agenda as the first priority after the next election (or before if they are in government) then they will not run against them in the next election. So say the Democrat candidate lost. They negotiate with the new Democrat candidate and agree to implement the democratic reform and some of the associated policies as soon as elected at the next election. (Including removing the filibuster/super majority if necessary.) Assuming the Republican President did not negotiate with the new Republicans then at the next election the Republican would be competing against the new Republican (who has agreed with the strategy and must run again) and the Democrats candidate. The new Republican candidate takes away 10% of the Republican vote, the Democrat regain the votes from the new Democrat who is not running. Therefore the Democrats win and have to introduce the democratic reforms agreed to with the new Democrat. If neither of the old parties negotiate both candidates run the next election, hopefully improving their position more and giving an even better negotiation position. (Or possibly win!)
In conjunction with this there has to be state based approach to get candidates who agree with the voting / corruption reform elected in the primaries. Each supported candidate would have to agree with voting /corruption reform and be willing to cross the aisle if necessary to get this approved. The candidates are members of the old parties but publicly support and advocate for voting and corruption reform (Must have reform candidates for both parties. I wouldn't try to establish new Democrat or new Republican Parties in the states.)
There has to be an organisational structure to organise, support and implement this, and some money behind it.
A suggestion from an outsider who is not an expert on the American political system. 🙂
Approval rating works better and is easier to explain.
Ranked voting massively reduces the need for tactical voting but Approval pretty much obliges you to vote tactically. Do you vote just for your favourite or risk harming them by voting for your lesser evil as well?
RCV doesn't solve what's claimed. RCV entrenches the two parties (Duverger's Law). "Approval Voting" tears down the two party system. Easily, cheaply, obviously. AV eliminates "lesser of evils", "fear of wasted vote", "favorite betrayal" strategies. EC, RCV, IRV are complex distractions that don't solve the two party problem. Vote for all approved candidates, the highest count wins; Same old ballots, same counting machines. Just better. It's how you'd select restaurants, outfits, vacations, any election seeking the widest satisfaction from multiple options is "Approval Voting".
@@dambar7486 what are you on about? RCV requires that you betray your favorites unless you believe they'll get dead last.
I'm still surprised that these non-academic reform groups (like Wolfpac and Represent) continue to avoid academic work. The reforms they propose have little if any data to support them. Often times it is just the opposite. The only 'academic' work in favor of term-limits for example is by a tobacco shill published by the Mercatus Center. Since 2016 we have worked on a 'fix' for campaign finance and partisanship that has not just been proven to work, but has been discussed by academics (and supported by the Framers of the Constitution) for decades. The trouble is the idea isn't sexy. It entails reversing the 1970 Legislative Reorganization Act. This is a law that most academics aren't even familiar with. Simply put it opened committees to the public. But the public that came storming in were the corporate lobbyists. And the data on this transition is jarring. By enabling lobbyists, both campaign finance and corporate lobbying exploded. And has been on a steady and steep rise ever since (Citizens United is just a blip of a data point in the middle). We spoke about this reform last year at Represent dot US. It was supported (even in the live video) by Larry Lessig. It got a fantastic review from the crowd. But the bigwigs at organizations like Represent, Wolfpac and Unite continue to push for unproven work that receives little to no support from anyone who actually churns the data. So I'll repeat, if we can reverse the 1970 LRA, we expect immediate drops in lobbying, campaign finance, partisanship, etc. This conclusion appears readily in the data and the work of hundreds of academics. So why? why? why? do these orgs continue to ignore it?
rank choice voting is cool,but I think we should allow two canidate to be put in a same preferences
RCV is not cool and doesn't solve what's claimed. RCV entrenches the two parties (Duverger's Law). "Approval Voting" tears down the two party system. Easily, cheaply, obviously. AV eliminates "lesser of evils", "fear of wasted vote", "favorite betrayal" strategies. EC, RCV, IRV are complex distractions that don't solve the two party problem. Vote for all approved candidates, the highest count wins; Same old ballots, same counting machines. Just better. It's how you'd select restaurants, outfits, vacations, any election seeking the widest satisfaction from multiple options is "Approval Voting".
RCV doesn't solve what's claimed. RCV entrenches the two parties (Duverger's Law). "Approval Voting" tears down the two party system. Easily, cheaply, obviously. AV eliminates "lesser of evils", "fear of wasted vote", "favorite betrayal" strategies. EC, RCV, IRV are complex distractions that don't solve the two party problem. Vote for all approved candidates, the highest count wins; Same old ballots, same counting machines. Just better. It's how you'd select restaurants, outfits, vacations, any election seeking the widest satisfaction from multiple options is "Approval Voting".
RCV does share some of the issues of FPTP, although it is still an improvement. It's definitely not the best replacement for FPTP. You're correct that approval voting is certainly better, and has the added benefit of being easy to combine votes across states for purposes of presidential elections.
Ok, I dont see how this would fix anything. In the end those votes would still go to trump, and this breaks our two party system in what way? let say you have four candidates the independs never win so those votes would still go to the party your registered under. As in if you vote conservatives you will vote republican, still dont see how this fixes anything.
The idea is that independents would have a better chance to build their base and 3rd parties would have a better chance to win. They would have a chance because there would cease to be a spoiler effect. IF you are more mild of a conservative you might vote for someone more in the middle but you HATE democrats and you know that a 3rd party vote just helps the democrats as you split the votes amongst your party(as explained in the video). But with this new strategy, as a voter you feel your choice matters more and you are less afraid to vote for a 3rd party or other such people because even if they lose your vote still goes tot he person you preferred most among the remaining options.
This is so important. Perhaps even more important than the invention of democracy itself!
And the invention of the Republic and a peoples constitution. Democracy isn't so great but has it's uses to a point.
Except there are usually more than two independent candidates, so this isn't really a great comparison.
@ 0:55 … This doesn't add up. 33+29+48≠100. Then @ 1:06 it does add up, but the numbers have changed. 45+7+48=100. Yep... Seems like the USA's voting system alright. LOL! In fact, just like in the USA's elections, you made no distinction between those wanting to vote AGAINST the "right wing" candidate and those wanting to honestly vote FOR the "left wing" candidate, nor have you made any distinction between those wanting to vote AGAINST the "left wing" candidate and those wanting to honestly vote FOR the "right wing" candidate. Add that distinction, let people vote honestly, and your spoiler effect is almost completely eliminated due to the added balance in the system. Add to that a change to a balanced ranked choice voting system, or better yet a balanced approval voting system, or better yet a balanced range voting system, and you've got yourself a pretty good way of counting the true intentions of the voters.
Please share
ranked system is interesting.
But still too flawed. There are better options out there
0:29 why is trust funders on there twice? lol
All positions should also have the choice, eliminate this job and associated spending.
I'm only the 3rd commenter because of the spoiler effect
on a serious note we need something like this in the UK too, I don't want the limited choice of a left wing zealot, a right wing supervillian or a hopeless 3rd party thanks
Scotland and Ireland already have Mixed Member Proportional, which is even more representative of votes than Ranked Choice. It's just not yet used in Westminster.
Evdog Music And when most of the country is centralised in Westminster that's a problem. Especially when the conservatives got 51% of the seats in Parliament with a mere 37% of the national vote in 2015.
Corbyn is only disliked because his party is stabbing him in the back. There are no downsides to him having power.
Would some IRV advocates say why you would not prefer a system that gives all voters equal power, such as wp.me/p23U97-fs ?
IRV also has the spoiler effect. Look it up. Technically, it fails the favorite betrayal condition. Voting for your favorite in second position can sometimes help them. That's absurd.
Lookup Approval Voting.
Why don't you give a link to support your reasoning. I don't see how ranked choice voting also has a spoiler effect. Explain in some way.
@@crcurran If you vote honestly for A > B > C, you take too many votes away from B and the greater of two evils C wins. If you vote tactically for B > A > C, the lesser of two evils B wins. It's the same as our current system.
@@eyescreamcake It sounds like you are describing what we have now. That's not describing Ranked Choice Voting.
In RCV, if A has lowest total vote count between A, B, & C in the first round, A is removed and all of those voters who put A as first have their votes go to the second on their list on the ballot. Some of those ballots will have B as second and some will have C. If someone did not put a second choice THEN their ballot is discard with no further bearing on the election. The second round is calculated using those new totals for B and C. If C should have the largest total then that is what the majority wants and the same if B has the largest total exceeding 50%. There is no spoiler effect that I can see. Please explain in detail how you think there is spoiler effect that matches or even comes close to First-Past-the-Post.
You likely don't understand how Ranked Choice Voting functions. Countries have been using it since the 19th century. It's not new.
@@crcurran Yes, it's basically the same as what we have now. That's why we're all opposed to it. Everyone pushes "RCV" without understanding how it actually works.
"A is removed and all of those voters who put A as first have their votes go to the second on their list on the ballot"
This is only true in contrived scenarios where their second choice is still in the running. In reality, "RCV" only counts first preferences in each round when deciding who to eliminate, so if you vote A > B > C, you can take enough first-choice votes away from B that B gets eliminated _first_. Your preference for B > C is never counted, and C beats A in the next round. If you had voted dishonestly for B > A > C, your first choice A would be eliminated, and then B would beat C. It's the same trade-off you need to make under our current system, because of the broken way that "RCV" eliminates candidates.
"You likely don't understand how Ranked Choice Voting functions."
I understand it better than most people who advocate it.
"Countries have been using it since the 19th century. It's not new."
Yes, it's ancient broken garbage. Condorcet considered this method as early as 1788 but immediately recognized its problems and dismissed it. Yet somehow it has become the only "reform" that Americans are even aware of. It boggles my mind that no one takes the time to actually understand the things they promote.
@@eyescreamcake "so if you vote A > B > C, you can take enough first-choice votes away from B that B gets eliminated _first_. "
That's only true if it is one of the last in the list to garnish votes and if that's the case C will likely already have far more votes.
"Your preference for B > C is never counted, and C beats A in the next round. "
Again only if B is counted as the lowest of the three. People should get their second choice over the masses second choice.
RCV is superior to what we have now. I can vote for parties other then duopoly parties of Dems and Repubs.
Do you have better? Tell us what it is. Convince us of that instead of just deprecating on what you don't like.
If you suggest we shouldn't waste our time changing to anything since there isn't anything superior well then you will have revealed a great deal.
Its stili 2 party system tho. The parties that can't get enough votes get cancelled anyway.
Yes, but then after the results are revealed, we get to see how much votes the smaller parties would get. Then over many election cycles, the bigger parties need to start paying more attention to the smaller parties or risk being overtaken. They probably will not but the bigger parties need to incorporate policies from the smaller parties in order to guarantee staying in power. This in turn makes everyone's views more represented.
Some parties don't get enough votes to matter. Others don't get enough votes, because most people (correctly) are afraid of splitting the vote. FPTP voting is locking us into the two-party system. RCV is an improvement, but still has some of the same flaws. Other systems are simple and more effective, like approval voting.
Fairvote.org is working to get ranked choice too
I think that we are bailing out a boat that has already sunk.
Haha ranked choice voting is supported by the establishment.
How about not voting at all?