Rank Choice Voting

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 121
#61
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@WyIted
let's say trump and biden get 49% and 48%

and RFK gets 3%

all the biden voters HATE trump so they put RFK as their 2nd choice

all the trump voters HATE biden so the put RFK as their 2nd choice


this is a perfect example of how the LEAST HATED candidate wins




now i know you're going to freak out and say "but only 3% voted for RFK as their first choice !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

nobody gives a shit about that

they're not voting "for" anyone so much as they're voting AGAINST "satandevilhitler"
#62
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,551
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@3RU7AL
It looks as though selecting a 2nd choice robs your first choice of its power. Knowing this, what is to stop voters from only putting down a first choice?
#63
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@cristo71
It looks as though selecting a 2nd choice robs your first choice of its power. Knowing this, what is to stop voters from only putting down a first choice?
there is no version of RCV that stops a voter from only selecting first choice
#64
Casey_Risk
Casey_Risk's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,029
3
3
8
Casey_Risk's avatar
Casey_Risk
3
3
8
So, I've sort of skimmed through this thread, but it does bring up something that irks me about the term "Ranked Choice Voting" and how people use it -- it's ambiguous. Some people use RCV as a synonym for Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), which is the most popular and well-known ordinal voting system, while some people use RCV as a way to refer to any sort of ordinal voting system.

While I do think that plurality is not a great system and virtually any alternative would solve the spoiler problem, no voting system is perfect and every popular ordinal voting system has a serious flaw imo. The Borda count is way too susceptible to strategic voting and could result in very undemocratic results if voters are largely strategic, while IRV is non-monotonic, doesn't meet the participation criterion, and is hardly any friendlier to third parties than plurality.

Personally, I think cardinal voting systems like Approval and Score voting are leages ahead of ordinal voting systems, but that's just me.
#65
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,551
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@3RU7AL
Ok. So if other candidates are a distant second choice or worse, voters can choose to override RCV given enough numbers by only selecting one candidate.
#66
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Casey_Risk
while IRV is non-monotonic, doesn't meet the participation criterion, and is hardly any friendlier to third parties than plurality.
the "problem" that is solved is the elimination of the ridiculously unfair primary system
#67
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,458
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@3RU7AL
this is a perfect example of how the LEAST HATED candidate wins
okay

now i know you're going to freak out and say "but only 3% voted for RFK as their first choice !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

None of my objections mentioned that and still stand unrefuted

nobody gives a shit about that they're not voting "for" anyone so much as they're voting AGAINST "satandevilhitler"

Yes and what public office has RFK been in for us to know he actually will do what he says?

People who have not been in public office and don't have to see the consequences of not voting for correct but unpopular views don't have to get their hands dirty and are normally favored by the population. In other words activists. RFK is an activist. We also have a situation where it is not hard to imagine a tight lipped celebrity that is popular such as the rock can just pick off votes that help the less popular candidate win.

You are kind of assuming some things here, lets look at a normal election and do some maths

Bush vs Gore vs jill stein vs gary johnson

You are imagining the following scenario

Bush- 35 %

Gore- 25%

Jill stein 22%

Johnson - 18%

You imagine a 2nd round that looks like the following

Bush- 40%

Gore- 29%

Jill stein- 31%

And a final round that looks like the following

Jill stein- 55%

Bush 45%

When a more realistic scenario would look something like this

Bush- 20%

Gore- 35%

Jill stein 22%

Johnson - 23%

second round

Instead of people's second choice being johnson we get a surprise

Gore- 51%

stein- 24%

Johnson- 25%

A better result would be a real run off election where the 2 highest candidates have a vote off.  Here are the real political parties in the United states and there are 4


1. socialist
2. moderate
3. social conservative
4. Libertarian

The moderate votes are normally going to the person at the head of the other ticket. So promoting RCV as a way to basically steal elections with underhanded tactics such as creating confederate candidates to steal far left and far right votes, isn't going to work out the way you think it does, and has been conclusively proven in places that have tried RCV it results in the following

1. Delayed election results
2. lower voter turn out
3. Votes actually thrown in the trash not metaphorical such as when you vote 3rd party
4. more errors in determining outcomes
5. increased volunteer hours to count the votes
6. undermined confidence in the election process, which also harms voter turn out


#68
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,458
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@cristo71
 to override RCV given enough numbers by only selecting one candida
This has been shown to happen with at least 35% of tickets in practice. also in practice it confuses the elderly and their votes get thrown in the trash. you can google screen shots of their ballots, real ones not the idealized versions in their head and the ballots can be very confusing
#69
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,458
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@3RU7AL
t
he "problem" that is solved is the elimination of the ridiculously unfair primary system
The primary system is fair though. It means the winning caandidate has to appeal to a larger amount of people, meaning everyone's voice gets heard.

#70
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@cristo71
Ok. So if other candidates are a distant second choice or worse, voters can choose to override RCV given enough numbers by only selecting one candidate.

my example was wrong

RFK would not win in the scenario presented

in the scenario i presented

a 3% RFK would be eliminated (the least voted first round candidate always gets eliminated)

and the people who voted for RFK would have their votes moved to whomever they selected as their second choice



in order for RFK to win RCV

his vote score would have to be at least slightly higher than either trump or biden

at which point either trump or biden would be the least voted and automatically eliminated

and then the votes for the eliminated candidate would move to their second choice (presumably RFK, since i can't imagine biden voters putting down trump as their second choice)



now it's important to keep in mind that this RCV scenario DOESN'T CHANGE ANYTHING

EVERYTHING PLAYS OUT EXACTLY LIKE SINGLE-CHOICE-VOTING BECAUSE THAT WOULD TRIGGER A RUNOFF

the only difference here is that nobody needs to bother planning and staging a SECOND ELECTION
#71
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@WyIted
The primary system is fair though. It means the winning caandidate has to appeal to a larger amount of people, meaning everyone's voice gets heard.

why make everyone vote twice ?

and if you're so concerned with "low voter turnout"

have you seen the numbers for the primaries ?
#72
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@WyIted
also in practice it confuses the elderly and their votes get thrown in the trash.
sounds like an awesome feature

isn't one of the main arguments against democracy "average people are too stupid to be trusted with important decisions" ?
#73
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,458
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@3RU7AL
why make everyone vote twice ?
To encourage the winning primary candidates to have to appeal to and take into account the needs of the losers voting block


and if you're so concerned with "low voter turnout"

have you seen the numbers for the primaries ?

I am not personally. I assume most people are so pointed to a fact that they could use in weighing whether RCV is worth it. It factually lowers voter turn out.

I assume primary voters are fewer than in the general election, which makes sense if you are trusting your fellow party members to make an intelligent decision and you plan to trust that decision. Perhaps you have less time to research those candidates but are fine researching the party leads . Or perhaps you are fine just voting with your party because you think the platform is aligned more with you than the alternatives.


#74
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,458
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@3RU7AL
sounds like an awesome feature
It's a fair point, but if you just spent 50 years studying economics, political philosophy and policy, perhaps we could really use that wisdom for making better decisions. Them having a brain less adaptible to changes, wouldn't make their hard work at crafting a great philosophy and intuiting it wouldn't go away.

isn't one of the main arguments against democracy "average people are too stupid to be trusted with important decisions" ?
That's why we try to buffer it by electing representatives. We could do more to buffer their stupidity. However I think there is a bit of a difference between the stupidity of your average wealthy 19 year old in their ivory tower and the life experiences and collective wisdom of previous generations.

I would however be fine preventing senior citizens from voting if we also made voting illegal for those under 30. It's a good compromise because it eliminates those whose brains are not adaptive enough to deal with new situations and it eliminates the votes of those whose ideologies should still be forming and very liquid
#75
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@WyIted
1. Delayed election results
ballots are designed to be counted automatically

automatic ballot counting takes the same amount of time regardless of the type of voting you choose

2. lower voter turn out
unmotivated, easily confused morons shouldn't be voting in the first place

3. Votes actually thrown in the trash not metaphorical such as when you vote 3rd party
invalid ballots SHOULD be thrown away

but once again, automatic ballot counters fix this problem by alerting staff immediately when an invalid ballot is entered

the last time i voted, the machine had a touch screen, and printed the results on a paper ballot, and then before i left the building

the paper ballot was scanned into a stand-alone machine

if the ballot was filled out incorrectly, it could easily be trashed and a new ballot reissued on the spot

4. more errors in determining outcomes
this makes no sense

5. increased volunteer hours to count the votes
almost nobody is counting ballots by hand

and when a hand recount is required, it ALWAYS takes a ridiculous amount of time

it took YEARS for the florida bush gore recount to be completed

6. undermined confidence in the election process, which also harms voter turn out
these people are morons if they think single-choice-voting is a good way to select leadership
#76
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@WyIted
why make everyone vote twice ?
To encourage the winning primary candidates to have to appeal to and take into account the needs of the losers voting block
it's a blatant scam to reward party loyalists and eliminate wildcards

perhaps you've heard of bernie sanders ?
#77
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@WyIted
I assume primary voters are fewer than in the general election, which makes sense if you are trusting your fellow party members to make an intelligent decision and you plan to trust that decision. Perhaps you have less time to research those candidates but are fine researching the party leads . Or perhaps you are fine just voting with your party because you think the platform is aligned more with you than the alternatives.
for someone who seems so interested in mitigating "low voter turnout" and "wasting the time of volunteers"

your assessment of primary elections doesn't fix either one of these "problems"
#78
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@WyIted
It's a fair point, but if you just spent 50 years studying economics, political philosophy and policy, perhaps we could really use that wisdom for making better decisions. Them having a brain less adaptible to changes, wouldn't make their hard work at crafting a great philosophy and intuiting it wouldn't go away.
a fucking five year old child knows how to rank their preferences

(1) pizza

(2) fried chicken

(3) hamburger

(4) bacon and eggs

(5) waffles

(6) pancakes

(7) macaroni and cheese

(8) noodle soup


you can number them by preference with #1 being your first choice

OR YOU CAN DRAG AND DROP THEM IN THE ORDER YOU WISH WITH YOUR TOP CHOICE AT THE TOP OF THE LIST



this isn't exactly rocket science
#79
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,458
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@3RU7AL
ballots are designed to be counted automatically

automatic ballot counting takes the same amount of time regardless of the type of voting you choose
This has been disproven and in the video I bring up several real world examples of elections with only 50k votes placed being delayed by 2 weeks.

nvalid ballots SHOULD be thrown away

but once again, automatic ballot counters fix this problem by alerting staff immediately when an invalid ballot is entered

This is not happening in the real world where RCV is implemented in the united states, so it's a moot point. We need to look at how it is implemented in the real world not in somebodys imagination.

more errors in determining outcomes
this makes no sense

Yes see the california  RCV school board election referenced in my video which mentions that the wrong person was seated for 6 months before the court corrected it. Also see my citation about the democratic mayoral primary whic erroneously included 135k invalid ballots which delayed the process about 2 weeks and almost resulted in the wrong winner again.  In the real world when this is implemented it causes a ton of problems.

almost nobody is counting ballots by hand

and when a hand recount is required, it ALWAYS takes a ridiculous amount of time

it took YEARS for the florida bush gore recount to be completed

Recounts do definitely require a hand count which is why paper ballots are required and in places where they are not required, a physical paper copy of your vote on a machine is created for accountability. In the minneapolis election cited with a mere 50k votes, a recount was required by hand and it took 30k man hours.

These people are morons if they think single-choice-voting is a good way to select leadership
Well that's how you title it, to make it sound unreasonable. The majority of people support RCV until informed of the errors and delays I pointed out and then the number drops to 25% support. I don't know that it is the idiots changing their mind when new information becomes available or if the idiots are the ones who see new information that shows why RCV is bad and then just double down because in an ideal world RCV is awesome and only their idealized vision of it is what should be counted when determining if it is good
#80
Casey_Risk
Casey_Risk's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,029
3
3
8
Casey_Risk's avatar
Casey_Risk
3
3
8
-->
@3RU7AL
ballots are designed to be counted automatically

automatic ballot counting takes the same amount of time regardless of the type of voting you choose
Instant Runoff Voting is not precinct-countable. It has to be counted centrally to ensure the correct winner. Most other voting systems, including plurality, do not have that flaw. 
#81
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,458
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@3RU7AL
you can number them by preference with #1 being your first choice

OR YOU CAN DRAG AND DROP THEM IN THE ORDER YOU WISH WITH YOUR TOP CHOICE AT THE TOP OF THE LIST
That's not how it works in real life. Below is an RCV ballot



You can see how it would confuse an elderly person with bad eyesight and how a shaky hand could easily invalidate a ballot.
#82
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Casey_Risk
Instant Runoff Voting is not precinct-countable. It has to be counted centrally to ensure the correct winner. Most other voting systems, including plurality, do not have that flaw. 
sending data

from each precinct

to a central location

takes the same amount of time

regardless

if it is 50 kilobytes

or 50 megabytes


it is just numbers after all
#83
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,458
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@3RU7AL
for someone who seems so interested in mitigating "low voter turnout" and "wasting the time of volunteers"
When I am making an argument listing pro's and cons am I better off including arguments that appeal to your ideology or to my own?

As long as I am being factual, I don't have to agree with a premise I present. If you disagree that lower voter turn out is bad, simply ignore the argument. I did elaborate a bit by pointing out that some people confused by it, still can make great decisions. However I think for the most part if you disagree with the premise ignore it. I gave other premises that I think should be taken into consideration and certainly ones I weigh more heavily before determining whether I would vote in favor of RCV, if the issue comes up where I live
#84
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@WyIted
You can see how it would confuse an elderly person with bad eyesight and how a shaky hand could easily invalidate a ballot.
right, ballot design is a problem and has always been a problem

this is fixable

#85
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@WyIted
This has been disproven and in the video I bring up several real world examples of elections with only 50k votes placed being delayed by 2 weeks.
do you understand that computers are really good at adding numbers together ?
#86
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@WyIted
This is not happening in the real world where RCV is implemented in the united states, so it's a moot point. We need to look at how it is implemented in the real world not in somebodys imagination.
this is not "somebody's imagination"

when i last voted

there were TWO validation checks BEFORE i left the building
#87
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,458
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@3RU7AL
right, ballot design is a problem and has always been a problem

this is fixable
Potentially, I don't believe that was an amended rank choice ballot you showed me. We won't know what any potential fix will actually do until it is tested, but even if you fix the ballot confusion you would still have all the other problems with it, such as delayed results, incorrect results and 30k man hours to do recounts in even tiny elections with merely 50k people.

Right now by defending RCV and advocating for it to be accepted, you are not advocating for the idealized version in your head, because the implementation would be similar to what we see in san Fransisco, Minneaolois, st. Paul and in limited use cases in New York city.

I would urge you to reach out to those promoting RCV and doing the work to get it passed in different areas by suggesting your solutions to them, that way when they do push for it to be accepted in can be closer to the ideal you have in your head than the crapshoot that is currently happening.

I would caution you a bit though. A lot off the reason it won't work could have to do with the requirement for paper ballots, lack of computer based voting as opposed paper votings and the requirements of paper ballots or paper reciepts of electronic voting. Perhaps if you change paper voting and swap it for electronic voting you can get the type of voting you really want, but until then it's very irresponsible to advocate for it, in the current climate.
#88
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@WyIted
Recounts do definitely require a hand count which is why paper ballots are required and in places where they are not required, a physical paper copy of your vote on a machine is created for accountability. In the minneapolis election cited with a mere 50k votes, a recount was required by hand and it took 30k man hours.
this problem is not caused by RCV

hand recounts always take an enormous amount of time
#89
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,458
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
Things needed to address RCV issues and each one of these sub issues you would need to argue is a good ideal as well

1. replacing paper ballots
2. removing the requirements of hand counts

it would be irresponsible to promote RCV prior to this by your own logic.

The above requires changes in laws about how recounts are done and increased funding as well as law changes to make electronic voting more common than what it currently is.
#90
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,458
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@3RU7AL
T
his problem is not caused by RCV
Correct

hand recounts always take an enormous amount of time
Sure but they take even more time with RCV and have even more errors with RCV so it makes the problem even worse. You also have to realize RCV can have up to 20 rounds of voting so really its 20 recounts for each RCV election as opposed to non RCV elections.