tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post4866119914779809867..comments2023-10-27T07:50:27.411+01:00Comments on Next Left: The case for AV: Vote for whoever you want to!Tom Hampsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05917325958130851128noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-28368358684301876812010-07-29T19:54:15.033+01:002010-07-29T19:54:15.033+01:00...oh, also, since you mentioned Condorcet: approv......oh, also, since you mentioned Condorcet: approval voting is more likely to elect the true Condorcet winner than any "real" Condorcet method.<br /><br />http://rangevoting.org/AppCW.htmlDale Sheldon-Hesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07974707193305445403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-14746419199275365892010-07-29T19:52:23.278+01:002010-07-29T19:52:23.278+01:00Scot:
http://rangevoting.org/BayRegsFig.html
Sur...Scot:<br /><br />http://rangevoting.org/BayRegsFig.html<br /><br />Sure, AV (IRV) might be a slight improvement. But look at that chart.<br /><br />Approval voting would be the easiest change to make for elections: instead of throwing out ballots that have two (or more) marks on them, you just count them as a vote for both (or all) of the candidates. Nothing else changes: there are no iterative phases, no thresholds, no shuffle about of ballots.<br /><br />And more importantly, approval voting would be a _real_ improvement in outcome, not a slight one.<br /><br />There's no reason to use AV/IRV; other systems are both easier AND better. That's not "perfect being the enemy of good"; that's real reform being the enemy of false reform.Dale Sheldon-Hesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07974707193305445403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-4520848512444689302010-07-28T11:22:43.403+01:002010-07-28T11:22:43.403+01:00Nice, Dale. I think that it also fails to work if ...Nice, Dale. I think that it also fails to work if there are more than three candidates. But with that said, it's better than plurality voting, because the Condorcet loser can't win, as he/she can under plurality voting. So it's at least a step in the right direction, isn't it? Or are we going to let the perfect get in the way of the possible??Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09056801273076089813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-22172545913723420732010-07-28T09:06:31.999+01:002010-07-28T09:06:31.999+01:00"To start, here is one argument for AV - Vote..."To start, here is one argument for AV - Vote for whoever you want to!"<br /><br />Sadly, this isn't true: just voting for who you honestly favor can result in you causing your least-favorite choice to win. Example:<br /><br />4: A > B > C<br />1: B > A > C<br />1: B > C > A<br />3: C > B > A<br /><br />if this election is just A vs. B, B wins, 5:4. But when you add C, the winner changes--TO A! In order to avoid this outcome, one of the C-first voters would have to tactically mis-rank B higher than C; in which case B wins.<br /><br />Honesty ceases to work under AV when the third-place candidate can gets near 25% of the votes.<br /><br />But there ARE voting systems that can handle this correctly: look into approval voting and score voting, which have no such perverse incentives in three-way elections.Dale Sheldon-Hesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07974707193305445403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-8032229001295702332010-07-26T12:38:49.273+01:002010-07-26T12:38:49.273+01:00Scot
I am agreeing with that point.
The informa...Scot<br /><br />I am agreeing with that point. <br /><br />The information request is "what % of voters say they voted tactically in 2010", which is a question about voting behaviour under the current system.<br /><br />The 10% refers to previous elections, as I think has been cited in the British Election Survey (from memory).Sunder Katwalahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06671411534003530927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-61295129253822601462010-07-26T09:43:05.971+01:002010-07-26T09:43:05.971+01:00PS Not that that's a reason not to support AV,...PS Not that that's a reason not to support AV, which I do whole-heartedly and am glad to see that you do too!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09056801273076089813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-60304602585679552462010-07-26T09:41:22.078+01:002010-07-26T09:41:22.078+01:00Sunder,
Re your request in the footnote. See Hix ...Sunder,<br /><br />Re your request in the footnote. See Hix et al., Choosing an Electoral System (available online at http://www.britac.ac.uk/policy/choosing-electoral-system.cfm) at p. 11: 'Any change of system deployed will influence the behaviour of both the parties and the electorate; under different systems, parties will campaign in different ways to maximize their number of votes/seats won, and electors will similarly alter their decisions according to particular circumstances.' Inference drawn: no analysis of what past electoral behaviour would have been under a different system is possible.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09056801273076089813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-3700675964533830952010-07-24T12:55:53.476+01:002010-07-24T12:55:53.476+01:00"Vote for whoever you want to!" does ind..."Vote for whoever you want to!" does indeed apply to the voter under AV. Unfortunately, the corollary is that "say what you believe in" no longer applies to the candidate or party contesting the election. The message not only has to be tailored to potential supporters but to potential opponents.<br /><br />The new motto: "Give up what you believe in before you start. Or just give up." Nice to have a choice though!Jon Lansmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00310767399614891247noreply@blogger.com