this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2025
571 points (92.8% liked)

Political Memes

6252 readers
4643 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PugJesus 7 points 1 week ago (9 children)
[–] chaogomu 4 points 1 week ago (8 children)

RCV is a bad option that's presented as if it could fix anything.

RCV was first invented in the 1780s, and the inventor wrote about it as the bad idea that it was, but because he was a mathematician, he wrote about the dead ends in the search for something better than the simple First Past the Post system that was in use in America.

The inventor, by the way, was Nicolas de Caritat, Marquis of Condorcet. His life was fascinating, and his death tragic, but for the moment we'll focus on his efforts to find a better voting system.

He created a criteria for a better voting system, now named in his honor. The Condorcet Winner is the candidate who can win against any other candidate in a one on one race. They're sometimes called the pairwise winner.

The point being, RCV, or it's older name of Instant Runoff, cannot reliably elect the Condorcet Winner.

This was why Condorcet abandoned the system.

It was revived by some guys a few decades after Condorcet's death. They didn't care that it was a flawed system, just that it was slightly better than the only other option available at the time.

But that was 200 years ago. We now have quite a few options that are not deeply flawed.

First is Approval. It's a dead simple system that always finds the Condorcet Winner.

How Approval works is thus; you get a list of names on your ballot. Mark any and all that you approve of. You may mark more than one candidate for each position.

The candidate with the highest overall approval wins.

Then there's STAR. It's brand new as far as voting systems go, only created in 2014. But it's also the best system designed to date.

Basically the voter rates each candidate on a scale of 0 to 5. Multiple candidates can have the same rating. To find the winner, you simply add up the ratings for each candidate, then you take the highest two and look at each ballot. The candidate with the higher rating on that ballot gets the vote. If neither of the top two is rated higher on a ballot, either being not rated or rated the same, then the ballot is counted as No Preference, and that number is reported as part of the final tally.

[–] buddascrayon 1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I'm a pretty intelligent person. And I can understand this small article you've written about voting systems and it's still bored the ever living shit out of me. Do you honestly expect the average voter to be capable of understanding all of what you just laid down here?

Ranked choice voting has the added benefit of everybody can understand what the fuck it is. It's very simple and it's much better than first past the post. Sure it's not perfect but perfect is not going to happen not when people are so dumb that they vote against their own interests simply because a washed up TV star said things they wanted to hear.

[–] chaogomu 1 points 1 week ago

The thing is, Ranked Choice is broken in dozens of ways. It's actually more broken than First Past the Post.

It gives bad results that do not match the lies that it's advocates tell, because FairVote lies their asses off about the system.

Fuck, it fails the Monotonicity Criteria.

I'll explain this one simply. The Monotonicity Criteria says more support for Candidate A should increase the chances that Candidate A wins. Under Ranked Choice, listing Candidate A first can cause Candidate C to win.

That and the insecurity around counting make Ranked Choice a fucking stupid idea. It was a bad system when invented and it's not gotten any better.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)