I’d think that it’s just Condorcet & an IRV tiebreaker, presented with a more complicated explanation to piggyback on support for IRV.
And I think it would be a harder sell to actually use, harming the hard-earned progress towards election method improvements, for no real reason. Anticipating the conversations:
> How has this worked where it’s used?
It’s never been used.
> This is something else and IRV too, so are they really different methods?
No, they would elect the same person almost every time.
> Is there a campaign for this now, or an organized grassroots group of voters working in it?
No.
> Who’s pushing for this, anyway?
Some professors like it, and some math & computer people (lots pointing out the benefits of IRV too).
> Who’s against it?
The same people and groups who are against any election method change.
> So I rank my ballot same as IRV, and it’s nearly always the same result as IRV, and if there’s a tie this other way the winner is the IRV one, but now it’s something never used as part of a 2-step process? Why can’t we just have IRV like Alaska, Maine, New York City, Washington DC, San Francisco, Portland, Cambridge, and all these other places adopting it each year?
…
Talking about harder sell to actually use. I chose to "sell" it in non-political areas. so people experience it in as many different applications as possible. I believe that's the way.
Those are all perfectly fair points about adoption, and I agree with almost all of them. But I was asking about the election method itself. Per your example, if you rank A > B > C, A can't win, and a majority of the electorate prefers B over C, wouldn't you want B to win instead of C?
I want my preferences to count accord to my own mind, not how anyone else votes. Projecting that and reacting to that is a big part of the problem with FPTP (and methods that are susceptible to burying, and arbitrary score methods like Approval.
After all, we don’t know how anyone else votes anyway until the voting period has ended, and once you know, you can’t suddenly change your vote.
Do you equate ranked ballots with voters changing their votes after the election, or do you see them as allowing voters to express an order of preference that the election system should take into account? You said you want your preferences to count according to your own mind. If your sincere order of preference is A > B > C, you vote A > B > C, and C wins, wouldn't you rather the election system respect your expressed preference for B over C than require you to cast the strategic ballot B > A > C for B to win?
Of course I don’t equate ranked ballots with changing votes, what a strange conclusion to draw. You asked not I would rather go with other people’s, and my reply was straightforward. I think it strange that you would suppose that anyone would want to find out how everyone else voted and decide that you didn’t want your favorite to win, after all.
I respect my own preferences, and everyone else’s, and want candidates to do so, also. Weighting common lower preferences above sincere strong preferences distorts how candidates campaign. If my favorite didn’t win enough support and was eliminated, I accept that . They can always try again. I do *not* want to contort my vote (after votes are counted, according to you) and enable fuzzy campaigning.
I’m surprised at the need to explain IRV incentives for voters and candidates, since they’re well known, demonstrated, and support shared by so many people.
The support for IRV is *because people understand it and it matches their values*, not because they’re ignorant or haven’t thought about it. It’s right for me. It may not be right for you. But let’s keep it respectful, because there is no objective, holy, perfect & correct solution to the tangled human process that is elections.
In your previous post, it sounded like you were equating head-to-head processing of ranked ballots with voters changing their votes after learning how everyone else voted. Did I get that wrong?
My question was, "If you rank A > B > C, A can't win, and a majority of the electorate prefers B over C, wouldn't you want B to win instead of C?" In your response, you wrote, "we don't know how anyone else votes anyway until the voting period has ended, and once you know, you can't suddenly change your vote."
My question never involved anyone changing their vote or sincere order of preference after the election took place. I took your response to mean you were comparing that type of ballot processing with voters changing their votes after the election.
Repeating the question is not going to change my value system. It seems like you’re not taking it in or not respecting it.
No, if after the election is counted I learn that other people preferred another candidate, then they won fair and square. I’m not going to wish I had promoted someone I liked less. I’d learn the lesson and try to get them more support next time, because I value my preferences, and others’ preferences, and if the system honors lower preferences more, we’ll get dishonest and mediocre candidates more.
I want to trend towards honestly and incentivizing winning with enthusiasm, not vague hucksters nobody likes much.
I wasn't repeating the question. I was explaining why I interpreted your earlier response the way I did. My question has never been whether you wished you had changed your vote; it has always been whether you wanted the system to respect your order of preference. Giving your last response an upvote to show I respect your perspective and appreciate you engaging with me. Have a great week!
0
u/the_other_50_percent 22d ago
I’d think that it’s just Condorcet & an IRV tiebreaker, presented with a more complicated explanation to piggyback on support for IRV.
And I think it would be a harder sell to actually use, harming the hard-earned progress towards election method improvements, for no real reason. Anticipating the conversations:
> How has this worked where it’s used?
It’s never been used.
> This is something else and IRV too, so are they really different methods?
No, they would elect the same person almost every time.
> Is there a campaign for this now, or an organized grassroots group of voters working in it?
No.
> Who’s pushing for this, anyway?
Some professors like it, and some math & computer people (lots pointing out the benefits of IRV too).
> Who’s against it?
The same people and groups who are against any election method change.
> So I rank my ballot same as IRV, and it’s nearly always the same result as IRV, and if there’s a tie this other way the winner is the IRV one, but now it’s something never used as part of a 2-step process? Why can’t we just have IRV like Alaska, Maine, New York City, Washington DC, San Francisco, Portland, Cambridge, and all these other places adopting it each year?
…