Ranked choice is 'the hot reform' in democracy. Here's what you should know(npr.org)
npr.org
Ranked choice is 'the hot reform' in democracy. Here's what you should know
https://www.npr.org/2023/12/13/1214199019/ranked-choice-voting-explainer
34 comments
There's a lot of kinds of ranked-choice voting, but the one this article describes is instant-runoff voting. It's particularly bad in that it isn't even monotonic, i.e., you can lose an election because too many people voted for you. IMO, it's actually worse than the system we use today. I agree a different system could be better, but not this one. (My preference would be for either approval or score voting.)
Given US presidential elections have, twice in my lifetime, been won by person with fewer votes than another, this would not be a concerning change.
Being nonmonotonic is way worse than that. Imagine a case where all of the ballots except one have been counted and it's really close. In IRV, it's possible that if the last ballot prefers Biden, then Trump wins, and if the last ballot prefers Trump, then Biden wins.
According to FairVote, the organization behind RCV in the US, RCV is the only option that is resistant to strategic voting.
https://fairvote.org/resources/electoral-systems/comparing-v...
Disclosure: I am a member of FairVote
https://fairvote.org/resources/electoral-systems/comparing-v...
Disclosure: I am a member of FairVote
I take issue with the phrasing "the only option that is resistant". Per the Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem, it's definitely not completely resistant to strategic voting, and other options are each resistant to it to different degrees.
Liking approval or score voting but preferring plurality/ftpt over ranked choice is a bit of an unusual opinion surely?
I knew fans of the various alternatives get a bit competitive but wasn't aware that they'd got to the extremes of claiming the others were worse than the status quo.
I knew fans of the various alternatives get a bit competitive but wasn't aware that they'd got to the extremes of claiming the others were worse than the status quo.
> preferring plurality/ftpt over ranked choice
Let me be clear: I prefer FPTP over IRV in particular, not over all ranked-choice systems.
Let me be clear: I prefer FPTP over IRV in particular, not over all ranked-choice systems.
I really wish the push had been for approval voting instead of ranked choice voting.
I think ranked choice is theoretically good, but it's relatively complicated, and complexity can lead to confusion which provides an opening for unscrupulous candidates (seems to be a much bigger problem than it used to be) to claim the results are illegitimate.
Approval voting is dead simple and seems to solve the same problem. I think it would be a lot harder to argue against approval voting.
I think ranked choice is theoretically good, but it's relatively complicated, and complexity can lead to confusion which provides an opening for unscrupulous candidates (seems to be a much bigger problem than it used to be) to claim the results are illegitimate.
Approval voting is dead simple and seems to solve the same problem. I think it would be a lot harder to argue against approval voting.
If by 'approval voting' you mean that electoral model where each voter can give up to one vote to each candidate on the ballot, I'm all in! We need to find a catchy name for that, too.
IDK why ranked choice sees more adoption than approval voting. The former seems to have many advantages: it's easy to explain, it's easy to count. The voter gets the choice to say yes to no candidate at all or all candidates at once, if they think that's what they want. They can give votes to fringe candidates without being afraid to have wasted their precious singular vote.
In contrast, ranked choice is harder to explain, uses more complicated ballots that are easier to inadvertently invalidate, and must either use an arbitrary number of ranked favorites (three being a frequent choice apparently) or else allow the use of numbers next to each candidate, or some system where voters somehow can arrange names in their preferred order (hardly possible on a paper ballot, awkward at best when presented with a screen with a longish list of names that will have to be ordered when shown first). Every single one of these options is on a spectrum of arbitrary to awkward to forbiddingly clumsy.
[approval voting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting)
[ranked choice voting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting)
IDK why ranked choice sees more adoption than approval voting. The former seems to have many advantages: it's easy to explain, it's easy to count. The voter gets the choice to say yes to no candidate at all or all candidates at once, if they think that's what they want. They can give votes to fringe candidates without being afraid to have wasted their precious singular vote.
In contrast, ranked choice is harder to explain, uses more complicated ballots that are easier to inadvertently invalidate, and must either use an arbitrary number of ranked favorites (three being a frequent choice apparently) or else allow the use of numbers next to each candidate, or some system where voters somehow can arrange names in their preferred order (hardly possible on a paper ballot, awkward at best when presented with a screen with a longish list of names that will have to be ordered when shown first). Every single one of these options is on a spectrum of arbitrary to awkward to forbiddingly clumsy.
[approval voting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting)
[ranked choice voting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting)
> ranked choice is theoretically good, but it's relatively complicated, and complexity can lead to confusion
In addition to this unnecessary complexity, ranked choice doesn't fix the "spoiler effect", where the presence of a losing candidate can "steal" votes from another candidate who would otherwise have won. Approval voting doesn't have this problem. See Arrow's impossibility theorem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theore...
In addition to this unnecessary complexity, ranked choice doesn't fix the "spoiler effect", where the presence of a losing candidate can "steal" votes from another candidate who would otherwise have won. Approval voting doesn't have this problem. See Arrow's impossibility theorem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theore...
Entire countries (eg: Australia) use ranked choice variations (in Australia: "single transferable vote"), Condorcet methods that reduce Arrow spoiler paradox's to "theoretically possible but exceptionally unlikely to happen".
Regardless, this is hardly an objection to using Ranked Voting over the US "First Past the Post" which suffers to an greater degree(?) to spoiler votes and leads over many iterations to almost identical non representative two party blocs that are hard up against each other and pushing independants out (for fear of spoiling).
It's notable that Australia, a small country of fewer than 30 million, had 10 independants elected to the House last election while the UK, the US, Canada and New Zealand elected only eight between them.
Regardless, this is hardly an objection to using Ranked Voting over the US "First Past the Post" which suffers to an greater degree(?) to spoiler votes and leads over many iterations to almost identical non representative two party blocs that are hard up against each other and pushing independants out (for fear of spoiling).
It's notable that Australia, a small country of fewer than 30 million, had 10 independants elected to the House last election while the UK, the US, Canada and New Zealand elected only eight between them.
Just want to add some nuance:
STV is used for the Australian Federal Senate.
The federal lower chamber (House of Representatives) uses optional preferential voting for candidates in a federal electorate.
I'm not sure if NZ is a fair comparison as it uses MMP, which is deliberately designed to favour multiple parties forming coalitions, not independents.
STV is used for the Australian Federal Senate.
The federal lower chamber (House of Representatives) uses optional preferential voting for candidates in a federal electorate.
I'm not sure if NZ is a fair comparison as it uses MMP, which is deliberately designed to favour multiple parties forming coalitions, not independents.
I didn't clarify as there's even more of a mix of ranked vote variations than that in Australia.
STV is also used in many state and territory local and state elections, see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote#Use
and scroll down to "local bodies" | Australia for a partial list.
The take home poin is that straight up simple Ranked Vote has an issue but is still (IMHO) better than FPTP and there are many ways to take the (minor) curse off of Ranked Vote to make it "better" (far less likely to hit a weird box corner that'll cause arguments | riots | civil war).
I mean, seriously, it's about electing|hiring people to work for the public, in the worst case we should at least just reset and restart, it's not life or death, it's just hiring a few managers that can be fired at any time or charged and imprisoned if they graft or steal.
STV is also used in many state and territory local and state elections, see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote#Use
and scroll down to "local bodies" | Australia for a partial list.
The take home poin is that straight up simple Ranked Vote has an issue but is still (IMHO) better than FPTP and there are many ways to take the (minor) curse off of Ranked Vote to make it "better" (far less likely to hit a weird box corner that'll cause arguments | riots | civil war).
I mean, seriously, it's about electing|hiring people to work for the public, in the worst case we should at least just reset and restart, it's not life or death, it's just hiring a few managers that can be fired at any time or charged and imprisoned if they graft or steal.
i co-founded the center for election science. this is superficially reasonable, but IRV could paradoxically make things worse by squandering election reform resources (namely, money) on a suboptimal and overly complex fix, at the cost of progress on approval voting, score voting, etc. then, if IRV gets repealed often due to its complexity, we end up worse off. alaska is plausibly going to repeal IRV this november.
Australian here.
> if IRV gets repealed often due to its complexity,
Politicians of all stripes have introduced a mix of voting systems here, but remains it is predominantly IRV. When it is changed from IRV complexity is never the reason. It would be surprising if it was, because it isn't that complex and besides complexity doesn't worry the computer systems doing the counting.
The reason is always political: the mob in power chooses the system that benefits them. Invariably when they tinker with the voting system one side is fragmented (eg, there are two conservative parties) and one is not. IRV favours the fragmented one. So if that is the situation and the non-fragmented one is in power, then water down IRV in favour of FPP. If the fragmented one is in power the reverse happens.
The argument proffered in favour of returning to FFP is always "simplicity". It is a lie. They are never doing it to make things simple. They are doing it to keep themselves in office. If you give them the power to change the voting system at the stroke of a pen, they will do it regardless of whether it's IRV, Ranked voting or any other system.
Personally, I'd rank the voting systems from worst to best as FPP, just about anything other the FPP (the difference in outcomes is marginal), and MMP is best of all. The difference between the first two is a bit academic when you allow gerrymandering and don't have compulsory voting like the US. When you can change the rules on who is allowed to vote and where, it's so much easier to do that than change the voting system. MMP makes the system much harder to manipulate like that, and it is harder to undo because usually requires a constitutional change to set up.
> if IRV gets repealed often due to its complexity,
Politicians of all stripes have introduced a mix of voting systems here, but remains it is predominantly IRV. When it is changed from IRV complexity is never the reason. It would be surprising if it was, because it isn't that complex and besides complexity doesn't worry the computer systems doing the counting.
The reason is always political: the mob in power chooses the system that benefits them. Invariably when they tinker with the voting system one side is fragmented (eg, there are two conservative parties) and one is not. IRV favours the fragmented one. So if that is the situation and the non-fragmented one is in power, then water down IRV in favour of FPP. If the fragmented one is in power the reverse happens.
The argument proffered in favour of returning to FFP is always "simplicity". It is a lie. They are never doing it to make things simple. They are doing it to keep themselves in office. If you give them the power to change the voting system at the stroke of a pen, they will do it regardless of whether it's IRV, Ranked voting or any other system.
Personally, I'd rank the voting systems from worst to best as FPP, just about anything other the FPP (the difference in outcomes is marginal), and MMP is best of all. The difference between the first two is a bit academic when you allow gerrymandering and don't have compulsory voting like the US. When you can change the rules on who is allowed to vote and where, it's so much easier to do that than change the voting system. MMP makes the system much harder to manipulate like that, and it is harder to undo because usually requires a constitutional change to set up.
> When it is changed from IRV complexity is never the reason
it's a reason why voters vote YES to repeal it.
> The argument proffered in favour of returning to FFP is always "simplicity". It is a lie.
you're talking about politicians. the more crucial side of the equation is _voters_, who have to vote on whether to repeal it.
it's a reason why voters vote YES to repeal it.
> The argument proffered in favour of returning to FFP is always "simplicity". It is a lie.
you're talking about politicians. the more crucial side of the equation is _voters_, who have to vote on whether to repeal it.
100% agree.
IMO, these days it seems like FPTP is more actually a source of instability (than stability it is often claimed is one of it's benefits).
Ranked choice won't solve our problems. Approval voting, single transferrable votes, or mixed member proportional elections won't solve our problems. Elections have intractable problems, they cannot be solved because they are inherent to the process. The ancient Athenians understood this.
The way forward is sortition. Not randomly selecting people directly to office mind you, but convening deliberative citizens assemblies to directly weigh in on issues and even potentially to appoint officials to govern. There is a rising movement to implement such reforms that has started to gain a foothold in Ireland, France and Belgium.
Those who want to know more should look into the Sortition Foundation and DemocracyNext.
The way forward is sortition. Not randomly selecting people directly to office mind you, but convening deliberative citizens assemblies to directly weigh in on issues and even potentially to appoint officials to govern. There is a rising movement to implement such reforms that has started to gain a foothold in Ireland, France and Belgium.
Those who want to know more should look into the Sortition Foundation and DemocracyNext.
The USA is trending away from direct democracy, and majoritarian rule in general. I think the time has passed for any sort of reform to take place.
Unfortunately, we're actually trending more towards direct democracy with an increasing number of referendums that often have terrible results. Representatives and their staff usually do a better job of writing bills.
Both referendums and elections are fundamentally broken and not particularly democratic to begin with. Deliberative citizens assemblies are the future of democracy. Randomly selected citizens, selected by stratified sampling for representativeness, are able to deliberate at a farm higher standard of discourse than elected officials. Such assemblies have performed extremely well so far in Ireland, France and Belgium
I don’t doubt the competency of representatives & staff when it comes to writing bills. I just doubt who they are writing the bills for…
Ah yes, the anti democracy scare. Switzerland is doing hundreds of referendums and is now closer to a thousand referendums than to 0 and they are doing better than the rest of Europe.
The USA has never been direct democracy (if that form of govt is even desirable, likely not).
Winston Churchill: “democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried.”
we need election by jury, not "democracy".
https://www.electionbyjury.org/
https://www.electionbyjury.org/
[deleted]
This seems discontinuous with the Center for Election Science's earlier push for approval voting. Approval voting maximizes the consent of the governed; this, while it may arguably do a better job at evaluating candidates, minimizes the consent of the governed, as most constituents would not have the opportunity to consent to any candidate. It's an interesting idea, but I would be very concerned about the outcome being perceived as illegitimate by the general population.
Hell yes. Also just citizens assemblies in general, whether for appointing officials or directly deliberating on issues. Turns out randomly selected citizens actually perform far better than elected officials.
Germans don't elect their chancellor. USA has more direct democracy than you think.
I see you're the kind of guy who wants his senators appointed by the state legislature. I, too, enjoy having wiser heads, who know better, prevail!
If you are ever on trial, I wonder if you'd prefer having a judge thinking about reelection when making decisions ...
Senators should be appointed by citizens assemblies/elector juries imo.