Rank Choice Voting worse than First Past the Post

There’s this bizarre notion that Rank Choice Voting is an improvement but IMHO it’s a massive downgrade from First Past the Post. Voting system nerds love to dump on FPtP because it’s a right of passage for anyone studying social choice but in the real world, aka not in a computer with a crappy model, FPtP has real advantages over RCV.

Confidence in results: a large % of people don’t trust the government. They think elections are rigged, the simplicity of FPtP coupled with exit polling goes a long way to making people believe our democracy works which is what keeps us from collapsing into anarchy.

How do you trust RCV? The average voter can barely explain the process let alone understand it. Then how do you complete exit polls accurate enough to predict who won?

Summability: the United States is a federation built on the idea of spreading out power not concentrating it. When you say that votes have to be counted in a single location that erodes a lot of trust.

I trust my neighbors in my precinct that they are honest and trying their best to run a fair election, I don’t trust a remote faceless person off counting votes by a computer that could be rigged. Local counting makes our voting more secure and people more confident in it.

Speed of result: the longer an election takes the less confident people are in those results. First past the post is way faster than RCV.

First past the post has fewer spoiled ballots

First past the post has a long tradition of creating the greatest democracy in history. Rank Choice Voting is used by crap places like Australia.

Approval voting is only better than FPtP in 1 way. It frees us from the need for primaries.

Basically agree but cardinal methods are better than both

1 Like

The best Cardinal method is general election only approval. Score voting introduces vulnerabilities to arrive at the same answer.

What vulnerabilities are you concerned about? Minimizing Bayesian regret seems the goal to me

Human beings don’t have Bayesian regret only computers do and computers don’t have meaningful democracy in actual Republics.

Score voting encourages people to run further and further Fringe candidates to make radicals seem moderate.

Approval voting is a more satisfying result, 58% of people voted for X tells me more than, X had a score of 6.32875 I mean what does that even mean?

The United States is a Constitution republic where the government derives it’s legitimacy from the consent (aka approval) of the governed not the score of the governed

Approval voting already makes polling harder because you increase the # of candidates and the # people can support. Score voting needlessly makes polling 10x harder for no reason. The harder polling is the less predictive polling is the less people trust elections. When polling is accurate and lines up with what the government says the results are people have faith in democracy.

Everyone in a score voting system just votes approval. Ask a Trump voter “hey would you like to water down your vote in 2020 and give Trump a 9/10 so that your voice is reduced” I mean give me a break.

Score voting is dumb

Even the aesthetics of score voting is awful. Instead of getting a sticker that says “I voted” you get a sticker that says “I scored” I mean what do candidates say? “Score me 10 out of 10” like they’re podcasts begging for reviews to better position in search algorithms? The tradition of voting is democracy. The tradition of scoring is pageantry which is fine. But in an era when reality TV hosts are politicians do we want to dump fuel on that superficial pyre of scoring?

Let’s do this. Let’s enact nation wide approval voting for a decade then after if people wish more that they could water down their votes we try adding the score aspect?

I mean how delusional do you have to be. Rational people know their vote doesn’t matter because elections never come down to a single vote. But score voting people are like " my 10th of a vote will make all the difference"?? It’s just so idiotic.

An engineer knows they’ve reached perfection, not when there’s nothing left to add, but when there’s nothing left to take away. Simplicity is a big part of why FPtP is wildly successful and RCV is an abysmal failure.

Personally, I think IRV is a slightly better system than FPTP, but I think adopting it would backfire because it would probably make it more difficult to get even better reforms passed.

If you were considering two movies, and one had an average rating of 3.7 stars and the other had an average of 1.4, which would you pick?

The point of Score is not so you reduce the impact of your first choice. The point of Score is to allow people to give a smaller number of points to second and third preferences. For example, a liberal could have voted something like Sanders=10 Biden=5 Trump=0. In Approval they have to either put Biden co-equal with Sanders or with Trump. If enough such voters do this, Biden may be able to win as the “consensus winner” even if his core support is the smallest (because the Sanders and Trump factions totally oppose each other).

That’s… not a terrible idea, although why the 10 year limit? Approval and Score in theory are compatible (can be used within the same election).

1 Like

You are wrong. Humans have the ability to regret. Bayesian regret is a way to quantify it.

Again, you are wrong. Score is unbiased.

That the average Utility of X is 6.32875 (presumably out of 10 so 63.2875% satisfaction)

You are just playing with words here. It is worth noting though that most of the founders were Utilitarians.

Nope, makes it easier. See this and this for references. Also, the difficulty of collecting data is independent of the accuracy.

This is not how score voting works. You are asked to give your favourite the max score. You would know this if you had spent any time looking into it. I am not gong to bother with the rest of your statements as they do not have any substance.

1 Like

Score voting either requires you to lie or to be manipulated.

Trump Hitler and Satan run for office if you vote all 3 the same you’re a liar since in your heart of hearts you know that’s not true you’d rather be governed by Trump than Satan but if you tell the truth the presence of Satan and Hitler on the ballot inflated your support for Trump

All voting systems with 3+ candidates are susceptible to strategy and dishonest voting sometimes.

In your example, you would have to balance your risk. I’m assuming “Trump, Hitler, and Satan” are listed in increasing order of evil, with a Democrat as far better than any of them.

If it looks like Satan has a decent chance of winning, then maybe you do give points to Trump and Hitler as the lesser evil. But you can still support the Democrat as well, unlike FPTP and IRV. (Actually, it is more the reverse – you can support the Democrat and throw a few points to your lesser evil.)

If Satan is losing and Hitler has a shot, then similarly, you may vote Democrat=10 Trump=5 Hitler=0 Satan=0. You can both differentiate Trump from Hitler and Democrat from Trump, unlike Approval.

IRV actually handles this example rather well. Actually, maybe not: perhaps Trump could beat Satan but gets fewer first place votes than Democrat and Satan and the latter wins the runoff.

1 Like