If you live in New Hampshire, I suggest you call your state legislators to support this bill. Approval Voting is a very small change that goes a long way! If you don’t live in New Hampshire, send this to someone who does!
If you live in New Hampshire, I suggest you call your state legislators to support this bill. Approval Voting is a very small change that goes a long way! If you don’t live in New Hampshire, send this to someone who does!
If 50% of voters picking 1 person out of 4 is “most,” then “most” people also voted for 2 or 3 out of 4. I shouldn’t have to point out that you can’t really have two exclusive groups both claiming “most.”
I’m using CES so heavily because they’re the ones with good data and write-ups, but I can dump more data from other sources if you’re interested.
A different interactive simulation where RCV usually agrees with the minority. Notice that it also fails to even be resolvable with certain opinions and so doesn’t get calculated at all.
RCV can hide second choices when first choices win or make it to the finals. Arguing that’s the correct result under RCV is circular reasoning, and the results fail to show the true support of the other candidates, which is important for future elections, where people judge who to vote for based on past results.
2023 Chicago Mayor election, multiple voting method polling data. Yes, the sampling method produced bias in the responses. The takeaway is not found in absolute, but comparative results.
Higher dimensional election modeling.
The spoiler rate under RCV is not insignificant, and at the very least, difficult to understand. Your voting method should not be difficult to understand. Do you want even more claims of a stolen election? That’s how you get even more claims of a stolen election.
The incentive to vote for one person also incentivizes you to cast a safety vote. You can’t have it both ways. Either the system will encourage people to vote for a candidate they don’t like, or it will encourage people to only vote their favorite. It can’t do both.
Also, can you show me those nonsensical spacial models under approval? I tried to create one and failed. If you create one, can you show the results for all four methods with that same candidate set?
Anyway, I don’t think we’re going to be having a productive conversation beyond this. I sincerely hope that RCV continues succeeding, despite its flawed nature, I think we can both degree it’s better than our current system. I hope both approval and RCV take over the country and are forced into an ultimate showdown.
Cheers!
You’re right most isn’t the right word, but let’s not stand on semantics. If fully half of voters aren’t conforming to expected behavior then you cannot expect the thought experiment about the effects to stand.
You gave me an empty simulation. I’m not doing your work for you, proving a negative is impossible. And a no majority result (Or in the US nobody reaches 270 votes in the electoral college), means Congress votes by state. We have constitutional back ups.
You are using exit polling. We have actual data about how people vote under approval voting. With things not accounted for in any of your math models, simulations, or polls; such as politicians using a one vote message during their campaign. Which is tactical voting. Ironically your next source identifies approval voting as the most susceptible to tactical voting, even above our current model.
The higher dimension election modelling source isn’t bad. But I can see why you just dropped it in there without saying anything. You didn’t read it and you just hoped the wall of text would add authority to what you were saying. Unfortunately for you he actually shows how weak approval voting is once actual human behavior is even attempted to be modeled.
The spoiler rate is not relevant. which is probably why you quickly switch to the stupid voter myth. However RCV is in use in 62 jurisdictions right now and that’s not actually a problem, except with bad actors who are going to go after any system we use. About spoilers, every election, poll, referendum, or ballot is subject to changing the measurement based on what is being measured. Put simply the choices available will always change how people vote. Imagine a world in which Trump was caught red-handed giving nuclear secrets to Putin in Mar-a-lago and he’s locked up for life with everyone agreeing he shouldn’t be on the ballot. How does that change Biden’s chances? Imagine actual Jesus is on the Ballot, how does that change Trump’s chances? These are extreme theoreticals used to prove a point but let’s go back to sophomore year poli-sci classes.
One of the things you learn around that time is how this works. Usually they two examples, and hypothetical bad faith one and a real good faith one. In the first, a city council has an empty lot and they want commercial development on it. But they need voter approval for what to do with it. So the first thing they do is a private poll to see what people want. It comes back 20 percent commercial; 20 percent homeless shelter; and 60 percent kid’s park. So on the referendum they put a choice of commercial development and a homeless shelter. They then sit back and let NIMBYism do it’s thing. In the real life good faith example they turn the page back to 1992 and Ross Perot.
So yeah, complaining about spoilers is just making noise and hoping people don’t actually figure it out. It’s really only a problem in bad faith scenarios like the GOP running people with nearly the exact same last name as the Democrat in the race.
The French study you linked does not prove you have to vote only for your preferred candidate or your safety candidate. That’s also an either/or fallacy, especially when discussing systems expressly meant to handle multiple choices. It is also, yet again, an exit poll. What have we observed about non binding polls? Lets ask the musician you so kindly linked. Oh yeah they’re likely to involve people who are more political, more conversant with the systems being tested, and less likely to vote tactically because there’s no pressure to win in an experiment.
I can see why you think we won’t be having a productive conversation after this. Several of your sources don’t claim what you say they do, in fact they pretty clearly tell you not to use their data in the way you are using it. Source bombing a conversation is a troll tactic.
Yeah I mean, voting data is messy. You’re trying very hard to interpret the data in only the way you want to. You’re the one who claims 50% picking 1 out of 4 doesn’t conform to expectations. I think that’s perfectly acceptable. If you look at the Democratic Primary Polling Data again, you’ll find that, in practice, RCV, Approval, and Score generally agree on the overall results. You seem to think that voters choosing only some candidates is somehow a failure of the system. How many do you want them to pick before it’s an acceptable number?
I made sure not to make claims about the sources unless they were true. It would be ridiculous to do otherwise. You’re taking claims I made elsewhere and applying them to things I didn’t point to. I have read and understood the entirety of every link I shared. I’m not going to be posting things I can’t explain. Different sources have different purposes, to dive into to details if each (which do not always agree with each other) would be further complicating an already nitpicky argument. You asked for more variation in sources, I provided more variation in sources. What would have been an acceptable but not excessive number?
You claimed you easily created nonsensical models, but have failed to produce your examples. You’re the one who has to provide proof of your claims, because just like you said, I can’t prove a negative. I already provided a graphical example of RCV misbehaving. Can you provide an example of the others?
You keep claiming we have plenty of data on RCV but then don’t reference any of it. Typically election officials don’t release the ballots, so it’s impossible to actually say what kind of election happened under RCV. The spoiler rate estimates for RCV elections are all over the place.
You’ve got the definition of a spoiler wrong. Spoiler candidates are a losing candidate that changes the winner of the race without a change in voter preferences. If you let voter opinions change, anything you try to say about the voting system is virtually meaningless.
Anyway dude, you’re clearly not interested in having a productive conversation. The only reason I’m replying is to make sure at least some of your assumptions and wrong claims are publicly countered, but at this point I really am going to say goodbye. I get the feeling that you’d somehow argue I didn’t address half your points but also gave a wall of text.
Say what you want, I’m done. I again wish you and the RCV crowd well (it’s not a terrible system) and hope we have some epic national stage showdown in the future.
Lmao. Actual data is messy, let’s use simplified data instead. No dude. That’s not how science works. Actual data from actual observations is better than experimental conditions. Specifically because of the human factor.
And you can’t make claims like “approval voting means you can vote for several candidates safely!” And then call single candidate ballots a success. They voted tactically. The politicians told them to vote tactically.
And elections offices won’t release the ballots but they absolutely release the anonymized data about what votes went where. Which is why I’m astounded you just claimed we don’t have data on RCV voting. There’s 62 jurisdictions in the US using it. It’s been used internationally as far back as 1893. Australia has been using it heavily for 80+ years. Your data is out there. Go find it. I’m not going to attempt to prove a negative because that’s impossible. And continuing to ask me to do so is incredibly bad faith.
And if a spoiler causes a change in the winner, then obviously people preferred that candidate over the runner up candidate. You know what would solve that? RCV.
Edit - lol I totally forgot to talk about your source work. I’ll leave it with a hearty lol though. You can say you read it all and it was super meticulous if you want but it obviously wasn’t.
You’re putting words in my mouth both by extending things I said into areas I didn’t go, and straight-up misremembering a claim I did make to the point where your quote isn’t even a factual statement independent of the fact that I didn’t say it. Furthermore, it is clear you don’t fully understand how RCV actually works, which is messing with quite a bit of your logic and messing with your interpretations of statements I’ve made.
Cheers mate, I wish you didn’t see me as an adversary.
I wish you weren’t so clearly using troll tactics, debunked criticisms, and trying to gaslight everyone.