@StarkRG@StillIRise1963 This is the correct conclusion, but it’s going to take a lot of my fellow white people a whole lot of working through feelings to get there. Folks still have this foolish idea that voting is like picking a fashion style or a sports team, an identity statement that’s supposed to make you feel good.
@StillIRise1963 I *really* don't want to vote for Biden, the bar was extremely low and he's still managed to disappoint, but I'm gonna do it anyway because Trump is *so* much worse. It's not even a contest.
@StarkRG@StillIRise1963 I’m very much a fan voting systems that us rankings, although when people say “Ranked Choice,” they’re usually talking about Instant Runoff, which is a •terrible• system, almost as bad as plurality. Sort of the natural gas of voting systems: better than coal, but….
I’m hoping that IRV opens the door to better systems range Approval Voting, Range Voting, Star Voting, etc. But progress is progress, and I’ll take it.
@inthehands@StillIRise1963 It's by no means a cure-all, but two things that desperately need to be implemented in the US are ranked choice voting (strategic voting wouldn't be a thing anymore, if the person you most want to win doesn't, your vote goes to your next choice), and compulsory voting (voting isn't a privilege, it's a duty like jury duty, a necessary part of being a citizen).
@StarkRG It’s not that good either. It’s •extremely• vulnerable to strategic nomination (especially but not limited to candidate cloning), and in the presence of such strategy, strategic voting becomes just necessary as with Plurality but even more confusing. It’s not a system that holds up well under careful analysis.
@inthehands Instant runoff/single transferable vote isn't that bad. It still eliminates the need for strategic voting and tells the more powerful parties that they aren't as highly prized as they think. Theoretically, they'll be more likely to take advice from third parties that received a high number of high ranked votes, though I don't think this happens.
@StarkRG Sorry, I misremembered! First: “Candidate cloning” means nominating extra candidates very similar to the one you hope to defeat. That’s not quite the thing IRV is vulnerable to; additional near-identical candidates don’t hurt each other. IRV is vulnerable to a different kind of spoiler effect: having more •different• fringe candidates can eliminate consensus choices. Asking forgiveness for the long reply, here’s an extreme illustration:
@StarkRG Suppose a state is heavily politically divided, diff regions hate each other. The most populous region wants a governor who will screw over the rest of the state. They field such a candidate, and •also• field candidates making the same “screw over the rest of the state” promise in every •other• region. That’s strategic nomination.
@StarkRG The “share everything fairly” candidates are many people’s second and third choices, but few people’s first choices, so they’re eliminated in early rounds of IRV. At that point, only the “screw the other regions!” candidates are left, so the one for the most populous region winds.
IRV can eliminate consensus choices in favor of extremists. My example is extreme, but this effect can play out IRL with as few as 3 candidates. Just harder to see.
It’s a little harder to get your head around, because it’s not constructed to be obviously preposterous like my example. But it’s the same principle in action.
@StarkRG Yes, it’s an improvement. I’m just frustrated that we finally have an alternate vote-counting system gaining traction, and somehow we managed to make it the second-worst one! Mathematicians and political scientists have devoted a lot of energy to thinking about this, and we’re not doing a great job of listening.
@inthehands I see. Yes, Instant runoff isn't the best, but I definitely wouldn't say it's terrible. It's certainly significantly better than plurality voting.