Andrew Yang 10 hour answer run

If you go to in the next two days (10/15 to 10/17) you can ask questions. He is currently an IRV supporter. The more of us shoot questions, the more likely we might be to get a question of Approval on the stream.

Everyone who sees this in the next two days should write a question. Just do it.


Can it contain ‘leading information’, such as noting that IRV has a worse spoiler problem than Approval or Score?


Or asking if he thinks monotonicity is an issue. Getting that flaw on in the awareness layperson would be a good win

1 Like

It looks like all the questions about IRV were grouped into the generic question “Do you think that RCV is a good idea?”, which prevented him from having to actually address any of its flaws, and only having to compare it to plurality.

The only people who are going to be able to talk to him directly, I think, are the people who pay him, which I expect will be a fairly effective way of avoiding being asked a difficult question.

My question wasn’t about IRV. I just asked if he would support methods like approval voting, score voting and STAR voting. Though after that I added some background by explaining the advantages of those methods in comparison to methods like FPTP and IRV. Would that question be filtered out too?

This ‘10 hour’ thing is bullcrap. I know EVERYTHING and you are all perfectly free to ask me anything with NO TIME LIMIT.

Either that, or he just didn’t answer your question. I don’t think that he addressed any electoral methods besides IRV vs FPTP. There may well have been some computer algorithm that sorted anything mentioning “RCV” into a category.

I suppose I was being a tad facetious in my above comment. The result received with this is just exactly what I expected, however. I just knew for sure in my gut that no actual contender would venture that far out into unknown territory.

It would make sense to just try to explain the score, approval, and STAR voting methods to as many people as possible. It’s hard to see how we will get anywhere until enough people understand these three simple things.

I am also mostly giving up on dealing with proportional (and diversificational) representation for now. Aside from some possible improvement of RCV (which I completely reject) it probably simply does not provide enough benefit to justify the complications it creates.

I do believe the very best approach for now is to let FairVote et al. bother the present-day politicians, and to work hard at reaching the general public.

One can also do “RATAR” (Ranked Approval Then Automatic Runoff): every candidate you rank is approved, and there’s an automatic runoff between the two most approved candidates. If a significant number of voters bullet vote in their rankings, I think this may largely end up being a Condorcet-like method. It is an Approval equivalent of STAR.

I do not actually ‘approve’ of any form of approval voting, but I included it because it is so popular at CES. I am 100% convinced that only score voting (or perhaps STAR) has any realistic chance of defeating party lock-in. Which, as far as I am concerned, is mostly all that matters. If that can be accomplished it will constitute total victory for the common voters.

Yes, but I was hoping for an “amplification”, i.e. a small amount of work on our part (asking a question) leading to a huge amount of publicity (Andrew Yang’s question run).

Approval is compatible with Score, so it can be used as a temporary improvement until full Score functionality is granted.

=/ Approval is compatible with Score, so it can be used as a temporary improvement until full Score functionality is granted. /= – above

I do not know in what sense you are describing them as ‘compatible’. With simple score, you can give your most favored 10 votes, and then give aristocrat fronted lesser evils 7, 8, or 9 ‘hedge’ votes, depending on your assessment of the most likely best outcome. However, with approval, your presumably best strategy is to give them all 1 vote, with no votes to the greater evils you are attempting to defeat.

Some people say that if only one voter splits away from the ‘pack’ and just gives 1 vote to the most favoreds, and no votes the any others including the lesser evils, then certainly one of the most favoreds will win. But this is hardly better than playing the Lotto, since human beings are enormously fickle, and many will surely give 1 vote to lesser evils, and no votes (or perhaps abstentions) to those who aught to be most favored (due to siding with the commonalty). This could be due to high dollar publicity, or just the greater likelihood of their having ‘heard the names’, or merely just chance.

So approval would probably fail to bring improvement, and therefore simple score would never see the light of day. Any new system absolutely must perform, and simple score would.

=/ so it can be used as a temporary improvement until full Score functionality is granted /= – above

I am afraid that nothing is ever going to just be ‘granted’. People will have to fight for it. Or the entire society will have to utterly collapse. I feel certain the utter collapse scenario is what we will soon experience. I personally will almost surely not survive it. The words you read now are directed toward folks who will be here after I am not.

What are the odds that Score really beats that? It seems like a voter must take a huge risk to give the lesser evil anything less than 10 votes if they want their own side to win.

=/ What are the odds that Score really beats that? /= – above

I would say that the odds that strategic hedge score will beat that fickleness are very vastly better than the odds that ‘flat’ approval will.

=/ It seems like a voter must take a huge risk to give the lesser evil anything less than 10 votes if they want their own side to win. /= – above

Well if their ‘own side’ is their favoreds, they will almost certainly give their own favoreds 10s. It doesn’t seem like such a huge risk to give lesser evils 9s, or in some cases even 7s. Besides, most people really love to gamble, at least somewhat. Why not let them?

In a close contest, every last point matters. Maybe an option to give “9.99” votes would help.

We should never let the nearly perfect become the enemy of the reasonably very good.

If people really are gamblers, even Approval might be a reasonably good method (though with a lot of bullet voting, the favored candidates would be winning with weak mandates).

With approval, the elite-fronted lesser evils are likely to always win. With strategic hedge score, the truly favoreds have a realistic chance.

So which is better?

If everyone who prefers the favoreds bullet votes for them, and everyone who favors the lesser evils bullet votes them, presumably the favoreds win. So maybe it just depends on what fraction of the population is willing to gamble, and whether they would gamble enough to bullet vote for what they believe in in Approval.

I mean that Approval precincts and Score precincts can coexist in one election. Sure it is worse to be in an Approval precinct, but I was thinking Approval would be a temporary stopgap in case it would take a few years for the precinct to get the necessary equipment or people to count Score.

Elite lock in cannot be destroyed in 1-2 election cycles. Independent candidates need time to prove their credibility. As long as we are in that phase voters who care between the 2 front runners strategically have to give 10 and 0 regardless.