this post was submitted on 20 May 2025
945 points (98.3% liked)
You Should Know
38246 readers
2495 users here now
YSK - for all the things that can make your life easier!
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must begin with YSK.
All posts must begin with YSK. If you're a Mastodon user, then include YSK after @youshouldknow. This is a community to share tips and tricks that will help you improve your life.
Rule 2- Your post body text must include the reason "Why" YSK:
**In your post's text body, you must include the reason "Why" YSK: It’s helpful for readability, and informs readers about the importance of the content.
**
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-YSK posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-YSK posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
If you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- The majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Rule 11- Posts must actually be true: Disiniformation, trolling, and being misleading will not be tolerated. Repeated or egregious attempts will earn you a ban. This also applies to filing reports: If you continually file false reports YOU WILL BE BANNED! We can see who reports what, and shenanigans will not be tolerated.
Partnered Communities:
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
Credits
Our icon(masterpiece) was made by @clen15!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Meh. There are better voting systems such as range voting and STAR.
There are, and my state would have banned those too it they'd heard about them when they were banning RCV. They weren't making principled objections like monotonicity failures. They likely noticed that most of RCV's loudest advocates were from the wrong party (and some of the were the wrong color too!), and figured that was a good enough reason to shut it down.
Got some videos here that explains various voting systems if yall are interested.
Electoral Reform Videos
First Past The Post voting (What most states use now)
Videos on alternative electoral systems
STAR voting
Alternative vote
Ranked Choice voting
Range Voting
Single Transferable Vote
Mixed Member Proportional representation
Your STAR voting video doesn't exist on my end, America here if that matters for copyright/prohibition.
France here, the video is unavailable to me too.
You also have to account in human stupidity. If you make the ballot too complex, dumbasses are gonna mess it up and the ballots will be invalidated.
The ballot is the same for all ranked voting methods. The method of determining winner from those ballots varies, and some are clearly worse.
For instance, if a candidate would beat all others 1-on-1 (Condorcet winner), then should a decent method always select that candidate as winner? RCV doesn't do that.
Example
Who wins according to instant run-off? C. Who wins against every opponent 1-on-1? B.
Other methods also fail.
This nice table compares voting methods by a wide range of properties. I don't think it hurts to make a more informed decision before backing a method that will be difficult to change. The US got stuck with FPTP through inadequate research, and it'd be great not to repeat that mistake.
While rated voting methods fail the Condorcet winner criterion, by rating instead of ranking candidates they satisfy another set of criteria also worth considering.
Among ranked voting methods, ranked pairs seems most compelling to me. Among rated voting methods, approval seems pretty good (and extremely simple).
I retract this portion of the comment and put in this spoiler
I think that'd fail miserably in the real world.
Think about the average voter. They see this ballot:
A vs B?
A vs C?
A vs D?
B vs C?
B vs D?
C vs D?
Yea I think they're gonna freak out upon seeing this ballot. Right now, the most important goal should be to get rid of the spoiler effect and FPTP, rather than finding the best system.
I can see a bit of strategic voting happening.
Let me demonstrate:
For the sake of simplicity, let's say we have 3 candidates, and no term limits:
Trump, Biden, Sanders
Biden and Sander voters dispise trump, their preference in RCV is (example):
Biden>Sanders>Trump: 30%
Sander>Biden>Trump: 25%
Trump>Sanders>Biden: 23%
Trump>Biden>Sanders: 22%
Okay, so lets say they all approve their top 2:
Biden: 77%
Sanders: 78%
Trump: 45%
Okay we have president Sanders! Congrats, right?
Well, now the trumpers who approved sanders are like: "Hey wait a minute, we made our daddy lose because we approved Sanders"
All the trumpers now have a meeting and decided that next election, they don't approve Sanders or Biden as a strategic vote.
So now, Election 2 Results:
Biden: 55%
Sanders: 55%
Trump: 45%
Oh great, it's a tie. The law says that the election have to be re-done to solve the tie:
Now this next election, all people who preferred Sanders first go to a Sanders supporter meeting and started saying: "Lets disapprove Biden so Bernie can win!"
Simultaneously, Biden voters will be like: "Lets disapprove Sanders so Biden can win!"
Next election results:
Trump: 45%
Biden: 30%
Sanders 25%
Congrats, we have a glorified FPTP and spoiler effect yet again!
Now, other election systems could also have strategic voting, but its less likely with, for example, RCV, since you can rank candidates.
I think you missed the first sentence I wrote:
Maybe explaining what you think that means would clear up confusion?
Yes, approval voting is indeed susceptible to strategies including burial, which leads to a "chicken dilemma".
Ah nvm, I thought the ballot was gonna lok like this:
A vs B?
A vs C?
A vs D?
B vs C?
B vs D?
C vs D?
I misunderstood, I get it now, its all tabulated in the background, same ballot as Ranked-Choice voting.
But my point about the approval voting still stands.
Ok, I'm sold, let's do this
RCV isn't monotonic, meaning that in the right circumstances you can harm your chosen candidate's chances by ranking him higher. Doesn't matter how rare it is; what a ridiculous quality for a voting system to have.
I agree it's a flaw, but the answer isn't to move to an even worse and more gameable system, it's to move to proportional systems like MMP.
Cardinal voting systems are terrible because strategic voting is as trivial as it is in FPTP. In IRV situations where strategic voting would be possible exist, but they're rare and hard to predict. In cardinal systems it's always best to give the maximum score or the minimum score, and never anything in between.
And when that happens it just defaults to approval, which is still non-monotonic and better than IRV, but it's been proven anyway that that doesn't happen and most people are honest (or would learn to be honest after few iterations). IRV is also not devoid of strategy, as it can be better to rank your true favourite lower
I think you missed the part where I said that it can happen, but that it's rare and hard to predict.
Approval Voting is bad because of the simple fact that it doesn't let you express any preference. There's no ability to say "I'll take this guy if I really have to, to avoid the worst outcome, but if possible I would much prefer this other guy". In single-winner systems, having some mechanism to express that one candidate is better than another is absolutely crucial.
Yea, sorry, my wording wasn't the clearest. I meant to say that it is actually not that rare, and hoped that the linked source would help support that claim. From the same website:
We can [assume that] "all votes [are] equally likely except that the probabilities that A,B,C will be middle-ranked of the three in that vote are 30%, 30%, and 40% respectively" where C is the 3rd-party candidate. Then in IRV as #voters→∞, C's probability of winning is probably exponentially tiny so that Joe Voter is justified in assuming C only a very tiny [...] chance of winning. Indeed C only has a tiny chance of merely surviving the first round.
However, Joe reasons, if Joe and friends by honestly-ranking C top do manage to make C survive the first round, then that will almost certainly happen only at the cost of eliminating Joe's second-favorite candidate A. If the A votes then transfer equally to C and B (which in "1-dimensional politics" with C A B arranged along a "line" in that order, seems likely) then C will almost certainly still lose, and will have deprived A of victory in the process.
The idea then would be that the behavior of mid-ranking the 3rd party candidate would be self-reinforcing in IRV: an assumption of a slight bias that way like we just made (40% versus 30% [...]), then leads to it being strategically wise for Joe Voter to do it, leading to a larger bias that way, etc. – positive feedback, self-reinforcing 2-party domination.
I agree and that's why I support Score Voting over it! The mechanism to express that one candidate is better than another one is to just give them honest scores! And there's studies proving that's the reality is, the vast majority of people are at least somewhat honest when filling out a Score ballot
Cardinal systems devolve into approval, and approval doesn't allow expressing preference. And being unable to express preference lends itself to some of the worst strategic voting and reintroduces the spoiler effect in the place it's most important to avoid the spoiler effect: serious 3-(or more-)way races. If I'm an A voter, B is centrist, and C is worst, then under approval it's fine for me to approve of A and B if I know A can't win. But the moment A is a serious contender, choosing to approve of B decreases the chance A might win. But not approving of B increases the chance C might win. I'm stuck with having to make a terrible decision.
Ordinal systems don't do this. Some ordinal systems might be better than IRV and avoid the biggest criticisms of that system, but ordinal systems beat cardinal systems nearly every time.
But the main thing about all of this is that every single-winner system is always worse than proportional multi-winner systems. Moving to any system other than FPTP should be the first priority, but if you're going to spend time knocking down suggestions to improve to the most well-proven alternative, you might as well go all the way and advocate MMP or direct proportional, and on shoring up some of the weaknesses of that system (such as problems with party lists letting parties choose who gets in even if people don't like the candidate of the party they like, or how minimum thresholds can lead to some people's votes being effectively wasted).
I think most people would agree that it does matter how rare it is.
Even if imperfect, ranked choice voting would give voters considerably more voice than they have now. That could be used to, for example, vote in another method in the future.
The point of RCV isn't to ensure your chosen candidate wins; it's to ensure that whoever does win has at least some amount of approval from the majority of voters.
It does still have flaws, but it's still far superior to the current system the US uses.
Really, anything other than FPTP is fine. RCV only has the same outcome as FPTP, where the least liked candidate can win, in ~10% of outcomes which is fairly uncommon. Really we should be okay with promoting most of the alternatives since they can be modified down the line as well. I personally promote Ranked Robin, STAR, and Score more but RCV is always worth supporting if it’s on your local ballot vs FPTP. Most people are more familiar and accepting of RCV if they have heard of some of these alternatives.