Found some IRV talkers who think Approval leads to two party dominance


#1

https://groups.google.com/forum/?nomobile=true#!topic/ranked-choice-voting/QavtrH2dP0E

Somewhere in that stream they said that IRV is good for third parties because the 2PD is more “fluid” (I saw no evidence) and that Approval leads to 2PD worse than IRV (which WDS did say was a thing to watch for, but Score Voting and STAR Voting help eliminate the problem of being forced to rate everyone you approve of equally.

Their argument was this: 51% vote for D and 49% for R. Now a Green Party enters, and if just three Green voters bullet-vote for the Green then the Republican wins. But what the IRV propagandists forget is that in that case bullet voting would be a bad strategy and in such a close election the democrats would not want to waste their power in the D vs R race. And besides, real voters are more complicated. Some may vote for the Repub and Green but not the Dem. And perhaps, if the Green is too liberal, maybe the Green does not deserve to win because he or she has a narrow appeal. A centrist would have better success.

But IRV does lead to 2PD:
N G>D>R
1 G>R>D (could represent an environmentalist conservative)
(45-N) D>G>R
10 D>R>G (could represent centrists who think G is too extreme)
44 R>(whatever)

We imagine that N will increase gradually over time as the Green gets more recognition. The scores are G=N+1, D = 55-N, R = 44. As long as N < 28, we have the usual “spoiler prevention” and D wins 55-45. But if N > 28, the Democrat is eliminated, and because of the centrists, R wins. And the mere fear that this can happen will leave G perpetually low on the rankings, unable to move up.

(With approval, G can just move up the scale without affecting the D vs R race at all.)


#2

Hi NoIRV,
I appreciate the analysis - super good. But let’s make sure we strike a tone of camaraderie, especially considering we’re all working together to fix the broken system. That IRV group is restricted for viewing from people not in the group - probably because they want to be free to make mistakes and learn. Best thing we can do is to be supportive of that.

Great post otherwise - I’m just going to edit the title to something a little less controversial.


#3

I changed your modified title to reflect what strikes me stronger. I know that WDS himself said that Approval could lead to 2PD but I have also noticed that the IRV propagandists sort of blur Approval and Score.


#4

Bullet voting would actually ensure breaking out of two-party rule eve more forcefully.


#5

It would be preferred if you could provide evidence or reasoning, so that we are better than the IRV propagandists on that.


#6

How do you figure, Clay?

Bullet Voting is what we are forced into currently, and it results in unquestionable 2 party dominance.


#7

Bullet voting means “voting only for your favorite candidate”. We are most certainly not forced into bullet voting.

Look, the argument we typically make is that Score/Approval strategy has you voting for the person you would with Plurality Voting plus everyone you like better. I.e. vote for the Democrat and the Green. That’s reality.

But unfortunately, FairVote and friends make this preposterous suggestion that strategic voting will be “honest Plurality Voting” aka “bullet voting”. So instead of voting Green and Democrat (or Libertarian and Republican, or whatever), third party supporters ONLY vote Green, or Libertarian, or whatever. Which would make the pressure for multiple parties even stronger.


#8

Please sit down and have a beer (or a joint). With single selection (“plurality” (sic)) voting we only get to vote for one candidate, right? So, technically, that’s “bullet voting.”

With strategic hedge simple score voting you might give 7, 8, or 9 votes (a 70%, 80%, or 90% portion of assertable support) to a lesser evil “elite” controlled candidate, and 10 votes (a 100% portion of assertable support) to a true paladin candidate. Thus you would deprive a greater evil “elite” controlled candidate of any support whatsoever. (You cannot do that with approval voting.)


#9

What’s strategic hedge simple score voting?


#10

Strategic hedge simple score voting is the most simple core voting that is reasonable, and it is intended to be implemented with hand counted paper ballots. For the election of “elite” independent candidates (rather than “elite” controlled candidates), the voters can cast from one to ten votes for each of as many candidates as they desire, and they are expected to vote strategically.

As I stated above:

Self Quote =/ With strategic hedge simple score voting you might give 7, 8, or 9 votes (a 70%, 80%, or 90% portion of assertable support) to a lesser evil “elite” controlled candidate, and 10 votes (a 100% portion of assertable support) to a true paladin candidate. Thus you would deprive a greater evil “elite” controlled candidate of any support whatsoever. (You cannot do that with approval voting.) /= Unquote

This will disrupt two-party capture, and is the only method that is fit to be promoted.


#11

It’s called score voting, not

Also,

If that’s the case, why not just use triple quaternion analytic parallelepiped barycentric non-euclidean radioactive octothorpe approval voting?


#12

Delimit=/ strategic hedge simple score voting /= is probably preferable to:

Delimit=/ Honest Abe who did not cut down that apple tree simplified with no zero votes and no averaging in order to make hand counted paper ballots quick and easy to use, which unlike approval is free from the crippling double bind quandary… voting /=.

Delimit=/ triple quaternion analytic parallelepiped barycentric non-euclidean radioactive octothorpe with an introduction to category theory approval… voting /= is not available at this time.

Why does this site strongly favor approval voting, which is subject to the double bind quandary, and thus does not provide strong protection from the double bind quandary, which will preserve two-party capture? Why promote something that will probably fail, when strategic score, which will disrupt two-part capture, is available? Why promote failure?


#13

?

So this comment technically has at-least 20 characters because this forum has some arbitrary rule about how many characters a comment has to have before submission.


#14

Turns out “Honest Abe” was not very honest at all. George Washington, however, was rather honest.


#15

#16

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#17

Can you handle the truth?

The “holy” Thomas Jefferson cheated his way to the presidency. It’s that simple.

YOU DO NOT HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO VOTE FOR THE PRESIDENT. That is an undeniable fact.


#18

Hacker, troll, or both?


#19

We are not dealing with pure mathematics. Our bizarre political history needs to be examined too.

These anecdotes are incredible and everybody should be aware of them. They may change your outlook.


#20

The websites have the look of some crazy troll who cites a few actual facts and then makes up a bunch of conspiracy theory junk to fill in the details that you are never going to fact check. There is an excessive use of bold, all caps, and punctuation. Of course SOME words can be all-caps or bolded, but when that happens all over the place it looks unprofessional.

I still think someone is hacking your account. When the real rkjoyce comes back, please change your password and do not let others see it.