Polling suggests voters (at least, Democratic primary voters) prefer Elizabeth Warren when they’re not considering electability (whether she can beat Trump in the general election.), though Biden is actually leading the primary, and Bernie might be taking votes from Warren. This shows that the current system can be indicted partially because it forces people to think in terms of runoff strategy in the primary, rather than voting honestly, which is something I haven’t seen pointed out too much. Maybe there is a way to make an appeal for general election voting reform to supporters of primary candidates who are getting hurt by the argument/appearance of unelectability when they are actually well-liked/poised to grow?
I am totally cynical about every one of the candidates. The Democrats are probably, if you look beyond the lies, not much better than Trump, If at all. I would never allow any of these people to walk my dog. Maybe old Bernie could pet her, under supervision of course.
We really need to remove the party lock-in effect (the ‘two-party system’) if we are ever to obtain any decent candidates.
IRV propagandists would probably say that several Democrats could run and they would transfer on each other to beat Trump, unless of course Trump had a majority of the vote outright. What they would then fail to consider is a scenario (in a swing state) like
30% Warren > Biden > Trump
20% Biden > Warren > Trump
5% Biden > Trump > Warren
45% Trump > irrelevant
Sadly, the public is likely to buy the “low core support is bad” argument until something like this actually happened.
Vote in my Rankings 2020 Dem Presidential poll. Only 45 votes so far, probably skewed by my friends I shared it to, but share around this link and see what we get if we get a deeper opinion on the candidates?
It really is exceptionally difficult to accurately rank all the candidates. I could see how someone might ignore ranking 3rd parties in places like Australia if their ballot paper is long.
Rating is O(n), ranking is O(n^2) or O(n log(n))…
I would never ask people to rank all the choices for more than about 3 choices. Too easy to just get junk data beyond that and annoy people with making them think about stuff they don’t want to think about. I think I always say to ‘rank as many as you like’ or call out ‘leaving some blank is ok’.
Even just ranking 3, figuring out who my 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choice are in such a crowded field requires me to practically do several kinds of binary search on the candidates…
Jay Inslee dropped out.
I just did the ballot. It took a lot of time, although I think it was more of a n log n time because I had an intuitive top tier, middle tier, and low tier (the low tier got mostly random numbers).
Ranking with equalities is a little better, although that works better with more options (with 3 options it is really just 0-2 score).
‘ranking’ with equality can be just ‘rating’ on a flipped scale.
conversely, a ratings ballot can be reduced to ranking by sorting (if there aren’t hard limits around rejecting equal-rank-or-rate ballots).
From the view of implementing the count in software there’s no reason to rule out equal rankings or ratings. So, let the voter how they want to vote.
Not necessarily. If you have a lesser evil, giving them only half of the possible points could endanger your voting power. Realistically, you might need at least 5 levels of differentiation in scoring to start dropping the lesser evil below your favorite. But if you’re talking only about compromising, then it works.
Maybe STAR could work decently with 0-2 score.
No. With four candidates, how can you differentiate “A and B are the same; C is a little worse; D is armageddon” from “A and B are the same, C is really bad, and D is even worse”?
Do you always make ratings ballots on a scale from Armageddon to Saint? Or are they just -10…10 or 0…10 or 0…5?
Ok, I could easily name the entire field from memory and list at least 3 issues I disagree with each candidate on so knowing them isn’t an issue for me. My ranked ballot does not come close to expressing that there are 2 candidates I like (1 more than the other), 2 more I would consider voting for in November, about 10 where I would vote 3rd party and 2 that I would buy a MAGA hat and door knock for Trump if they were the nominee.
This just stood out to me.
Yeah it drives me crazy when I get polled to. Whats worse though is they only ask you if you are likely to vote in November once right off the bat. Which is why Biden’s head to heads with Trump are inflated. There is a zero percent chance that all the people who said they will vote thinking Bernie will be the nominee show up for Biden.
Or were you curious about my reasoning?
Generally pollsters don’t just rely on whether you say you will vote to decide if you are actually a likely voter. It’s more used to rule people out: a significant proportion of registered voters say they will vote but don’t actually do it, but few say they won’t vote but do so anyway. To decide who will, they tend to give more weight to whether you have voted in the past, which is public information.