Most Americans support term limits, campaign spending caps, and Electoral College reform, but achieving these changes likely would require amending one of the world's hardest constitutions to change.
Thanks, I don’t believe when people are talking about ranked choice, they mean this condorcet form, correct?
It’s been a while since I read up on this stuff but I recall being most intrigued by STAR voting and various proportional voting systems. The latter seems important as it eliminates a lot of electoral chicanery. I think if each faction receives power exactly proportional to the votes they receive, it will reduce the incentive to do voter suppression.
Ranked choice in the US is pretty much only instant-runoff (IRV).
All the votes are tallied for a voter’s first preference, if no majority winner then the ballots for the lowest-voted candidate are re-tallied for their next preference - repeat until some candidate gets a majority.
It is a terrible voting system, mathematically only barely better than first-past-the-post. The reason (in my opinion) that it has gotten some traction in the US is that it is the change that is least-threatening to the party duopoly, with the math telling us that is supports the same big-tent duopoly that FPTP does as an end-state.
A better form of it is the condorcet method, where candidates are compared pairwise based on preferences. E.g. on how many ballots is candidate A ranked above candidate B? The winner of such an election is the one who wins the greatest number of head-to-head elections.
STAR is interesting, but I personally find it too complex and it fails at preventing many different electoral pathologies.
Approval voting is the method I prefer (mark all candidates you approve for holding this office). Immune to spoilers, simple to explain, adaptable to single and multi-winner elections, and ensures that the candidate that has the broadest electoral support wins.
Thanks, I don’t believe when people are talking about ranked choice, they mean this condorcet form, correct?
It’s been a while since I read up on this stuff but I recall being most intrigued by STAR voting and various proportional voting systems. The latter seems important as it eliminates a lot of electoral chicanery. I think if each faction receives power exactly proportional to the votes they receive, it will reduce the incentive to do voter suppression.
Ranked choice in the US is pretty much only instant-runoff (IRV).
All the votes are tallied for a voter’s first preference, if no majority winner then the ballots for the lowest-voted candidate are re-tallied for their next preference - repeat until some candidate gets a majority.
It is a terrible voting system, mathematically only barely better than first-past-the-post. The reason (in my opinion) that it has gotten some traction in the US is that it is the change that is least-threatening to the party duopoly, with the math telling us that is supports the same big-tent duopoly that FPTP does as an end-state.
A better form of it is the condorcet method, where candidates are compared pairwise based on preferences. E.g. on how many ballots is candidate A ranked above candidate B? The winner of such an election is the one who wins the greatest number of head-to-head elections.
STAR is interesting, but I personally find it too complex and it fails at preventing many different electoral pathologies.
Approval voting is the method I prefer (mark all candidates you approve for holding this office). Immune to spoilers, simple to explain, adaptable to single and multi-winner elections, and ensures that the candidate that has the broadest electoral support wins.