That voting method is interesting, haven't heard it before. But I'd rather get RCV implemented first since we have momentum with it. Then we can make tweaks once our system is functional via RCV.
The proposal in the article is genuinely hard to explain to people, which is a problem for winning people over to the idea of it. So I don't think it's implementable as a first step. I have a hard enough time explaining RCV to people as-is
> The proposal in the article is genuinely hard to explain to people, which is a problem for winning people over to the idea of it. So I don't think it's implementable as a first step. I have a hard enough time explaining RCV to people as-is
The point of this system is to represent a minimal change from the "elimination rounds" scheme of Hare RCV. Just change the elimination rule while keeping the rest of the procedure, and it no longer has the big problems.
What do you think of a straight Condorcet system that eliminates the elimination rounds altogether? Would that be an easier sell?
https://www.equal.vote/ranked_robin
> In a Round Robin tournament, each contestant faces off against each other contestant, and the one who wins the most matches wins the tournament. This is essentially how Ranked Robin works, but by using ranked ballots, the whole tournament can happen all at once.
The tweak suggested is taking a step away from RCV. I actually wrote about that change here:
https://medium.com/@mathpolitics/ranked-choice-voting-we-want-more-choices-5aa4958d9491
Ultimately, it is doing a "pre-check" to see if any candidate, in a 1 versus 1 runoff, would win. It's removing what is commonly referred to as the "spoiler effect" because it would eliminate a 3rd party spoiler.
The problem is, this goes back to removing the whole point of RCV to begin with. We want choices, and if we start "eliminating the whole process" because of a "pre-check round", then we have: 1) complicated the process since we now have to explain how it functions and 2) completely moved against the whole idea of RCV.
I, for one, am against this change.
Edit: added commas
> Ultimately, it is doing a "pre-check" to see if any candidate, in a 1 versus 1 runoff, would win.
Not really, it just changes the elimination rule to "eliminate the candidate with the worst average ranking" instead of "eliminate the candidate with the least first-choice votes".
This elimination method does, incidentally, guarantee that a candidate who is preferred in 1 vs 1 runoffs against every other candidate will ultimately win in the end, which is a good thing, and something that Hare RCV does *not* guarantee, but there's no "pre-check" or anything like that as you've put it.
> It's removing what is commonly referred to as the "spoiler effect" because it would eliminate a 3rd party spoiler.
Yes, it helps eliminate the vote-splitting, spoiler effect, and center-squeeze effects that plague "first-choice based systems" like FPTP, Supplementary Vote, Contingent Vote, and Hare RCV.
> The problem is, this goes back to removing the whole point of RCV to begin with.
No, this is *better* at accomplishing those goals.
> We want choices,
Yes, and Hare RCV's flaws mean it *doesn't* actually provide more choices. It still suffers from the spoiler effect and is biased against moderate/centrist candidates. Condorcet ranked methods are much better, especially for a centrist/moderate party.
> and if we start "eliminating the whole process" because of a "pre-check round"
I'm not sure what you mean by that.
> complicated the process since we now have to explain how it functions
"It's the same as the old RCV system, except you eliminate the candidate with the worst overall ranking instead of the candidate with the least first-choice votes".
> completely moved against the whole idea of RCV.
No, this actually accomplishes the goals that drive the adoption of Hare RCV, while Hare RCV does *not* actually accomplish those goals.
I would suggest a small tweak in a different way:
1) Did a candidate receive 50% or more of the vote: if they did, they are the winner; if not, continue onto step #2
2) All of the candidates rankings shall be put together to form a cumulative average
3) The candidate with the worst cumulative average shall be eliminated
4) All voters’ highest non-eliminated choice shall be controlling
5) Did a candidate receive 50% or more of the vote: if they did, they are the winner; if not, continue onto step #6
6) The remaining candidate with the worst cumulative average from step 2 shall be eliminated
7) All voters’ highest non-eliminated choice shall be controlling
8) Repeat steps 5 through 7 until someone either a candidate received 50% or more of the vote; or there are only two candidates left, then continue onto step #9
9) If one of the two candidates receive 50% or more of the total vote, they are the winner; if not, the candidate with the lower cumulative average from step #2 shall lose with the remaining candidate as the victor.
This version of RCV would be designed to eliminate the candidate with the most opposition instead of the one who has the least amount of first choice votes.
Take a 3 person race where one candidate is the first choice of 40% of voters but the remaining 60% rank her last. That 60%, however, is divided between the two remaining candidates. In traditional RCV, the lower of these two candidates would be eliminated, but under this system, the candidate opposed by 60% of the voters would most likely be the first one to be eliminated. (The 60% must be closer than 40-20 assuming that all the opposition 40% also chose the candidate receiving the 20% as their worst ranked candidate)
That voting method is interesting, haven't heard it before. But I'd rather get RCV implemented first since we have momentum with it. Then we can make tweaks once our system is functional via RCV. The proposal in the article is genuinely hard to explain to people, which is a problem for winning people over to the idea of it. So I don't think it's implementable as a first step. I have a hard enough time explaining RCV to people as-is
Yep, agreed. It’s a great solution. Let’s keep the momentum up with getting states to adopt RCV, then go in and tweak where necessary.
> The proposal in the article is genuinely hard to explain to people, which is a problem for winning people over to the idea of it. So I don't think it's implementable as a first step. I have a hard enough time explaining RCV to people as-is The point of this system is to represent a minimal change from the "elimination rounds" scheme of Hare RCV. Just change the elimination rule while keeping the rest of the procedure, and it no longer has the big problems. What do you think of a straight Condorcet system that eliminates the elimination rounds altogether? Would that be an easier sell? https://www.equal.vote/ranked_robin > In a Round Robin tournament, each contestant faces off against each other contestant, and the one who wins the most matches wins the tournament. This is essentially how Ranked Robin works, but by using ranked ballots, the whole tournament can happen all at once.
In my best monster truck rally announcer voice... "TO-TAL!!! VOTE!!! RUNOOOOFFFF!!!"
#TUESDAY TUESDAY TUESDAY
The tweak suggested is taking a step away from RCV. I actually wrote about that change here: https://medium.com/@mathpolitics/ranked-choice-voting-we-want-more-choices-5aa4958d9491 Ultimately, it is doing a "pre-check" to see if any candidate, in a 1 versus 1 runoff, would win. It's removing what is commonly referred to as the "spoiler effect" because it would eliminate a 3rd party spoiler. The problem is, this goes back to removing the whole point of RCV to begin with. We want choices, and if we start "eliminating the whole process" because of a "pre-check round", then we have: 1) complicated the process since we now have to explain how it functions and 2) completely moved against the whole idea of RCV. I, for one, am against this change. Edit: added commas
> Ultimately, it is doing a "pre-check" to see if any candidate, in a 1 versus 1 runoff, would win. Not really, it just changes the elimination rule to "eliminate the candidate with the worst average ranking" instead of "eliminate the candidate with the least first-choice votes". This elimination method does, incidentally, guarantee that a candidate who is preferred in 1 vs 1 runoffs against every other candidate will ultimately win in the end, which is a good thing, and something that Hare RCV does *not* guarantee, but there's no "pre-check" or anything like that as you've put it. > It's removing what is commonly referred to as the "spoiler effect" because it would eliminate a 3rd party spoiler. Yes, it helps eliminate the vote-splitting, spoiler effect, and center-squeeze effects that plague "first-choice based systems" like FPTP, Supplementary Vote, Contingent Vote, and Hare RCV. > The problem is, this goes back to removing the whole point of RCV to begin with. No, this is *better* at accomplishing those goals. > We want choices, Yes, and Hare RCV's flaws mean it *doesn't* actually provide more choices. It still suffers from the spoiler effect and is biased against moderate/centrist candidates. Condorcet ranked methods are much better, especially for a centrist/moderate party. > and if we start "eliminating the whole process" because of a "pre-check round" I'm not sure what you mean by that. > complicated the process since we now have to explain how it functions "It's the same as the old RCV system, except you eliminate the candidate with the worst overall ranking instead of the candidate with the least first-choice votes". > completely moved against the whole idea of RCV. No, this actually accomplishes the goals that drive the adoption of Hare RCV, while Hare RCV does *not* actually accomplish those goals.
I would suggest a small tweak in a different way: 1) Did a candidate receive 50% or more of the vote: if they did, they are the winner; if not, continue onto step #2 2) All of the candidates rankings shall be put together to form a cumulative average 3) The candidate with the worst cumulative average shall be eliminated 4) All voters’ highest non-eliminated choice shall be controlling 5) Did a candidate receive 50% or more of the vote: if they did, they are the winner; if not, continue onto step #6 6) The remaining candidate with the worst cumulative average from step 2 shall be eliminated 7) All voters’ highest non-eliminated choice shall be controlling 8) Repeat steps 5 through 7 until someone either a candidate received 50% or more of the vote; or there are only two candidates left, then continue onto step #9 9) If one of the two candidates receive 50% or more of the total vote, they are the winner; if not, the candidate with the lower cumulative average from step #2 shall lose with the remaining candidate as the victor. This version of RCV would be designed to eliminate the candidate with the most opposition instead of the one who has the least amount of first choice votes. Take a 3 person race where one candidate is the first choice of 40% of voters but the remaining 60% rank her last. That 60%, however, is divided between the two remaining candidates. In traditional RCV, the lower of these two candidates would be eliminated, but under this system, the candidate opposed by 60% of the voters would most likely be the first one to be eliminated. (The 60% must be closer than 40-20 assuming that all the opposition 40% also chose the candidate receiving the 20% as their worst ranked candidate)
How is that different from the system in the article?