portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reporting united states

corporate dominance | political theory

To stupid to undertsand: RANKED CHOICE VOTING fails

RANKED CHOICE VOTING fails to pass in California ...
DEMOCRATIC Governor of California,

VETOED #SB212 which passed both state senate/house which would have allowed cities, counties, and school districts to hold local elections using RANKED CHOICE VOTING because he said #RCV is confusing.

TWITTER: @GavinNewsom

LINK:  https://twitter.com/hashtag/SB212?src=hashtag_click

INFO:  https://lwvc.org/take-action/action-alerts/take-action-tell-governor-make-local-elections-more-democratic

 https://twitter.com/FairVoteCA/status/1174680561685630977

RCV Is A Very Deep And Profound Illusory Mind Trap 19.Oct.2019 10:32

blues

Nothing surpasses the beauty and elegance of a bad idea. -- Craig Bruce

Ranked choice voting looks very attractive, and many people truly believe it will remove the (two, in our society) party lock-in. It will not. In fact it will saddle us with a system far worse than our current choose-one system, and effectively destroy democracy.

The fact that it very often bizarrely fails to output consistent responsiveness to voter input (by ranking your favored candidate higher, you can actually cause that candidate to lose, when he or she would have won if you had simply stayed home!) -- is fairly well known. (This is often called 'non-monotonicity'.) But it has many other bad issues.

Suppose there are three 'kindred' candidates (they are fairly similar ideologically), and these three are supported by a large majority of the voters. This majority will put all three in the first, second, and third rank-places. But they will randomly 'rank' them in different orders, so they will effectively cancel each other out. And then some 'sinister' voters will come and 'bullet vote' for their 'sinister' candidate (who is detested by the actual majority), and the 'sinister' candidate will thereby win the election.

If on the other hand, the 'score' voting method was used instead, that majority could simply use the 'hedge strategy' to block the 'sinister' candidate. (Please let's not raise the silly 'honest voter' fetish.)

Various 'mutant' forms of RCV (aka 'IRV') have been tried before, and some people are unfortunately still saddled with it, as in Australia (where the people need to be forced to vote because it is illegal not to). Are the Australians in love with their RCV system? Check out:

Australian politics circa 2006
 https://rangevoting.org/AustralianPol.html

Also:

=/ And it is hard to ignore the resemblance between the Australian and U.S. governments, as far as partisan divisions go. Despite RCV, just two governments have led in Australia for almost the entire history of the current Federal Parliament: Labor and Liberal-National. (Technically the Liberal and National parties are separate, but they have been allied since the 1920s, and, at least at the national level, a vote for one is effectively a vote for the other.) Every time there is a federal election in Australia, one of the two major parties wins, RCV be damned. /= -- Link below:

 https://democracyjournal.org/arguments/ranked-choice-voting-is-not-the-solution/

The original post above mentions a link to the FairVote NGO, almost surely the biggest RCV promoter -- Is this a real grassroots movement? They are fronted by some of the world's biggest corporate affiliated multi-billion dollar foundations.

Check that out.


Real Link To My Website 19.Oct.2019 11:01

blues

Something very strange happens when you click the (broken) link to my website -- I was directed to a nice advertisement for a driveway paving company! Real link:
 https://simplescorevoting.wordpress.com/

The example is NOT a probem for RCV (or by its other names) 20.Oct.2019 09:31

Mike Novack

Your math is off. THAT scenario is not one where RCV fails to work well. Two of the "kindred candidates" will get eliminated, random as you say, but in the process the votes for the remaining two (and then one) will be increasing. Meanwhile, this "detested by the majority" candidate's count will remain unchanged. The ONLY way this candidate would win is if did have a majority.

"Suppose there are three 'kindred' candidates (they are fairly similar ideologically), and these three are supported by a large majority of the voters. This majority will put all three in the first, second, and third rank-places. But they will randomly 'rank' them in different orders, so they will effectively cancel each other out. And then some 'sinister' voters will come and 'bullet vote' for their 'sinister' candidate (who is detested by the actual majority), and the 'sinister' candidate will thereby win the election."

BUT I AM NOT SAYING THAT SIMPLE MINDED Ranked Choice Voting DOES NOT HAVE (serious)PROBLEMS. It can give horrible/unlikely to be accepted results if there is a "Condorcet candidate*" that gets eliminated. This bad outcome is preventable by modifying RCV vote counting (not the balloting procedure to do a check for a winner by Condorcet count BEFORE starting the eliminations.

RCV would still have reining defects, but these perhaps less serious.

However, RCV is really suited only to single winner elections. The situation where an election is say to elect five from a slate of 20 is better handled with the sort of "simple score" voting Blues likes << you get as many votes as there are to be winners; distribute as you like, spread out or all for one candidate you really want among the winners. Offers a minority faction some representation >>