Rank choice voting unworkable for presidential elections


#62

The foundation supported RCV lobbies will presumably come up with some complicated write-in option.

But note that, unless every single ranked ballot is sent to one central authority, then for (C = “number of candidates”), under the very simplest scheme, the number of rank combination totals will be (C!). So for 15 candidates, (15! = 1,307,674,368,000) number of rank combination totals would need to be sent to the central authority.


#63

Write in candidates are a problem for ALL tallying systems.

And the solution is the same:

  1. add the write-in candidates to the list of candidates

  2. sum and tally


#64

“Why can’t you just add all the votes up one time and be done with it, like with simple score voting?” That would work if it was for a single seat. That’s called a borda count.

But when there are multiple seats, in order to avoid tyranny of the majority, you have to transfer surplus votes from an elected candidate. This is true both for ranked choice and score voting.


#65

There is no central voting authority in the states we elections are state ran.


#66

Wait, what? Oh, I get it. But there is a problem…

Kevin, I want you to vote Horrible > Evil > I > R > V > B > A > D > F > O > R’ > U > S > W > X > Y > Z > Ok > Good. If you do and I see that exact rank ordering in the published results, then you keep your job.
Sincerely, Your Boss


#67

NoIRV do you have a point or are you just trolling?


#68

What NoIRV is (of course) saying is that if your boss demands that you vote (with RCV) one of those specific 1,307,674,368,000 sequences (which he/she specified), and it does not show up, you will get fired.

What is being overlooked here, and is most important, is that RCV badly fails the elite party capture criterion. Thus RCV fails utterly and is thus anti-democratic.


#69

So in other words NoIRV was just trolling. That’s a violation of policy in most forums like this and certainly not of decorum and civility.


#70

“And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?” – King James Version (KJV)


#71

So you’re now attacking me for calling out a person on their trolling?!? Makes no sense.


#72

I was pointing out a genuine flaw with IRV, namely that it can lead to vote buying. I see it as satire, not trolling.

Another big flaw is that we can get into counting nightmares because of near ties on possibly EVERY ROUND. It is three days after the election, and 3 senate seats and 13 house seats are still undecided. Imagine if this had to happen five different times.


#73

Note that one of those 13 outstanding house races (ME-2) is still undecided because they use IRV. They were only able to begin their second count yesterday.


#74

I explained that the same flaw exists for score voting, so long as it is multi-winner as opposed to single winner. And in the single-winner case, both systems are trivial.

The mentioned difficulty is not a function of ranked vs. score, but of single winner vs. multi-winner.


#75
  1. I only advocate Score Voting in the single winner case, like Senate, gubernatorial, and presidential elections.
  2. For multi winner I instead advocate Asset Voting, or failing that, Score Voting in districts with a nonpartisan commission or automated system.
  3. IRV in the single winner case still suffers from either vote buying or an extremely difficult counting routine. Score Voting in the single winner case does not.

Summary:
Score Voting: Single Winner = Good, Multi Winner = Bad
Asset Voting: Single Winner = ok, Multi Winner = Good
IRV/STV: Single Winner = Bad, Multi Winner = Bad

(Ok means that the system is sort of boring but it is immune to vote buying as long as write ins are controlled.)


#76

as I said before, for single winner ranked choice you can just do borda count. also for multi winner you ALWAYS have to transfer surplus votes.

so the breakdown is simply:

single winner: good, multi-winner: bad

across the board.


#77

Oh.

The whole time I thought you were arguing for Instant Runoff Voting, but it seems that you were actually arguing for Borda Count?

The IRV propagandists seriously should use “Hare Voting” or “Instant Runoff” or “The Alternative Vote” as the name of the system, because “ranked choice voting” is confusing for other systems like Condorcets and Borda and Bucklin.

I think this now 76-post thread is confusing everyone with all the different claims being made.


#78

I was talking about ranked choice broadly. The way the ballot is filled out.


#79

Wait, but Kevin did say he was talking about IRV in post 16.
Yeah, this thread has definitely fallen off the track.