Balance of Proposed Voting Systems

[Bono]

Return to FPTP
Runoff Voting
Aproval voting with a two way runoff, or without it.
Keeping with IRV
Borda Count
Condorcet
Range voting
Does anyone think it'd be a good idea to form a comitee to study these hypothesis?

[Peter]

Of those who do support a return to FPTP, very few actually support going back to the original FPTP - most, like KEmperor, would rather see a French/Louisiana style runoff system. Without a runoff, the Presidential elections could end up with various alliances or incredibly split wings of the political spectrum.

The problem with IRV is that in the last election it took us 2.5 hours to calculate for the Presidential system in a manner that would make us absolutely sure that we were right. As I nearly got the chance to prove, the system is not monotonic, i.e. a vote for your preferred candidate does not always help your preferred candidate.

Borda Count would not be so plagued by the problem of the complicated process of redistributing preferences by hand that caused so much confusion as it would be a simple one round entity.

Condorcet voting like IRV would take a while to calculate and I don't claim to totally understand it. Some of you will say "just use a programme" - I barely trust my pocket calculator to multiply, I'm not going to entrust an election to the computer.

Range voting - If we limit the number of points awardable, you can just see quite a few ballots being thrown out in the first election.

Approval voting with runoff - My preferred option. Approval voting is easy to understand and is always monotonic - Like all the other systems, it remains open to tactical voting and thus in an "open" election, you could see some bizarre last minute voting to try to secure favourable last round matchups.

A committee with a pretty wide ranging mandate to study the various effects (voter education & understanding, monotonicity, ease of calculation, etc.) would be a good idea.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I set up one of these ages ago, but no one turned up. If one is set up again, I'd like to be a member.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Condorcet voting like IRV would take a while to calculate and I don't claim to totally understand it. Some of you will say "just use a programme" - I barely trust my pocket calculator to multiply, I'm not going to entrust an election to the computer.

You can do it by hand, or use multiple programs to verify it, some of which are open source. This would definitely not be like using Diebold.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

As a representative of the CPPV, I would like to be a member.

I've actually got a spreadsheet that makes PV easier to calculate, but it doesn't allow for write-ins and has problems if people don't preference all candidates.

*cue Hugh to note that all candidates should get prefs*

[Platypus]

well, thats how the system works here, and it does mean the system works flawlessly if there are no write-ins and all canidates, or all but the last, are listed. That said, I would not neccessarilt recommend that now, as any change in the voting system could be confusing and disenfranchising, even changes to improve the current system. If there would be problems assosiated with just this, consider the complications of introducing another syustem altogether...

[Joe Republic]

Approval voting with a run-off is my preferred option.

Any system that needs to use the letters 'x' and 'n' to explain it, or needs a computer program to count the votes is sure as hell no fun.

[Peter]

Also, requiring the preferencing of all candidates would mean we would have to invent a new way of breaking ties: At present we use total number of preferences cast at any position to break them (it adds an odd elements of approval voting for some situations) - if everybody has the same number of preferences then obviously a new method is required.

[Emsworth]

Simple FPTP: This would only be appropriate if we have a two-party system, which we don't.

FPTP with runoff: My preferred option. It is easy to understand, and simple to implement.

Instant runoff voting: My second choice. It is relatively simple to understand, even though the counting may prove somewhat tedious.

Approval voting with runoff: I oppose this method. The approval voting detracts from the political element of the game. Approval voting seems more consonant and harmonious with non-partisan races.

Borda count: There would be too much scope for tactical voting, even with a secret ballot.

Condorcet: Condorcet is much more difficult to understand and implement than IRV, but suffers from similar theoretical flaws. It is monotonic, but fails the participation criterion. (In IRV, you can help your preferred candidate by voting for someone else. In Condorcet, you can help your preferred candidate by not voting at all.)

Range voting: See the problems with the Borda count.

[Peter]

Approval voting with runoff: I oppose this method. The approval voting detracts from the political element of the game. Approval voting seems more consonant and harmonious with non-partisan races.

You keep mentioning this both publically and privately, and I keep thinking about it, and I just don't see it: How does approval voting "de-politicise" a race, after all, I as a voter am still making judgements about which candidates I believe are fit to hold office, and then I vote accordingly. If two of my approved candidates make it into the next round, I can then make a choice between them; If its just the one, usually my vote would be obvious and if none then I pick the lesser of two evils I suppose, which could easily be how my preference voting would have ended up under IRV.

[7,052,770]

I'd like to serve on such a committee, if that's acceptable.

[MasterJedi]

I've entered a bill about forming a commitee to discuss this, and it was written by Joe Republic. I'm not for or against it now.

[Emsworth]

You keep mentioning this both publically and privately, and I keep thinking about it, and I just don't see it.

Generally, in our elections, almost all candidates seem to be well-respected citizens. Some voters would, in my opinion, deem that none deserves the "indignity" of not being approved. If the number of these voters is high enough, the race would have been sufficiently depoliticized. There would then be a few voters who would vote insincerely for their own candidate, and not for any others.

Approval voting also results in the election of the least disliked candidate(s). I feel that a proper voting system would at least theoretically serve to select the voters' first choice, not just the candidate who is disliked the least.

Obviously, the second round would not suffer from this problem.

[Joe Republic]

Thank you for doing that, MasterJedi.  I realize doing it this way is probably excessively bureaucratic, but its the only way an actual discussion can take place and be noticed too.

[Emsworth]

I should add that approval voting with a runoff would be preferable over Condorcet, range voting, the Borda count, and even simple FPTP.

[The Dowager Mod]

If you want to get the commission noticed put me on it.

[CheeseWhiz]

As a representative of the CPPV, I would like to be a member.

I've actually got a spreadsheet that makes PV easier to calculate, but it doesn't allow for write-ins and has problems if people don't preference all candidates.

*cue Hugh to note that all candidates should get prefs*

Sorry; next time, preference them all, I will.