If you live in New Hampshire, I suggest you call your state legislators to support this bill. Approval Voting is a very small change that goes a long way! If you don’t live in New Hampshire, send this to someone who does!
If you live in New Hampshire, I suggest you call your state legislators to support this bill. Approval Voting is a very small change that goes a long way! If you don’t live in New Hampshire, send this to someone who does!
That’s not true. I literally just described how the spoiler effect occurs in approval voting. And if the votes for number two remain locked behind number one in RCV then number 2 wasn’t the most popular candidate. Number 1 was. Number 2 is ranked lower for a reason. That’s the entire point of RCV.
Star is just approval voting with an extra round. RCV works, is in use, and is popular where it’s in use.
No, and here’s a clear example:
In this matchup, C is eliminated in the first round and A ends up winning after D is eliminated. However, C got 10 votes to A’s 7, so C should’ve won.
This is obviously contrived (I spent like 10 seconds thinking of it), but hopefully it illustrates the point. A popular third option that could win with Approval voting could lose with RCV. And C would win under STAR voting as well.
Nope. The entire point is that C was not popular enough to rank higher on ballots. The A votes were never going to C because A won. The most C was going to get was 6. The A voters preferred that candidate over C.
The way you want to look at RCV requires counting some people twice.
No, what’s going on is that more people preferred C than any other candidate, they just didn’t mark them first. A and B had equivalent first round votes, and B only wins because of second round votes. If we looked at an second round votes in the second round votes when the first round didn’t pick a winner, C would’ve won.
B only wins because strategic voting messed things up.
There are plenty of other ways I could twist the votes to the point where it’s really not clear if RCV actually represents the will of the people in a contested election.
Approval is clear: most votes wins. STAR is nice in that every vote counts, not just when your front-runner is knocked out. RCV pretends to give you options, but if you pick a poor preferred candidate, you could lose pretty much any say in the election, so it can end up worse than FPTP in the public’s eyes in certain elections.
They didn’t mark them first because they wanted A over C. Which is the entire point. In this scenario Biden could easily be C, the safety pick, and you’d be arguing that he was what everyone actually wanted. Against all polling. That’s the entire point of RCV.
With STAR, Approval, and Single Vote, your still asking people to not vote for a safety candidate in order to give their preferred candidate the best chance. People understand this and the 2 places that used Approval voting saw people voting for one person still because it’s not hard to understand. Approval voting’s theory is dependent on people voting in a specific way that just does not happen.
One thing is for certain, if you pull apart the rounds in RCV you can certainly pretend it’s not clear that the will of the people was served.
You can also have cases where the most preferred candidate won’t win. For example:
In this case, B wins, but A has more primary votes, and C would’ve won if A happened to be knocked out. So those who voted for A aren’t getting their voices heard. I think most would agree that either A or C should win here, not B.
I think this video does a good job comparing each of the voting systems.
This site is also great, but a bit biased toward STAR.
Sorry. I stopped watching your video the second he used the propaganda line about people being overwhelmed by ranking candidates. RCV is in large use and there’s no evidence that happens. Yet it keeps being trotted out.
Also, while I appreciate you trying to find a win condition I would object to, in this 2 round election C and B voters obviously make up a coalition. Like Democrats and Progressives. Saying A voters weren’t listened to is about as irrational as saying Trump voters weren’t listened to because he lost.
Edit - Also, holy crap dude, did you really pause that video so it only cues up on his criticism of ranked choice voting? Completely missing his praise?
Here’s the actual start of Mr beasts RCV voting section.
No, I think that video is pretty fair and unbiased, hence why I linked it. I’m not trying to say RCV is bad or anything, just that I think it’s not as good as approval or STAR.
I think RCV will do little to break the 2-party system because major party candidates are likely to have the most #1 votes because people are lazy. Approval and STAR both count #2 votes, so they find the candidate tolerable by most, which I believe will result in more frequently electing popular third party candidates, which is my personal goal here.
I think the FairVote website is incredibly biased toward their system, largely relying on its popularity instead of its merits, and it’s popular because it was first (and it has a good name). I used to be a strong proponent, until I really looked at other options and became unhappy with how winners are selected. The second link was the main thing that convinced me, but like Fair vote’s website, it’s a bit biased, but I did enjoy the video that covered each fairly.
No it’s extremely biased. Including the way in which you presented it so that people only see his critique, and not his positive points.
I also never mentioned Fair Vote. RCV isn’t “their” system either. Are you sure you’re not projecting?
Approval and STAR both still heavily select for the “safest” candidate. In Star it’s because you know they’re going into a two person run off. So it’s basically a primary and a general in one election. That’s not going to give people the confidence to rank third parties highly.
Approval literally requires you to get rid of your safety vote if you want your preferred candidate to win. That’s a leap of faith that’s not happening and no amount of theoretical math is going to catch it.
Mr Beast is repeating what he’s heard and that’s not his fault, except that he should really do more research. There are no recorded cases in the US where RCV has caused the candidate with majority support to lose. And the theoretical underpinning seems to rely solely on acting as if a preferred candidate didn’t exist. The entire moving people up or down thing smacks of game show math magic. (The odds of finding the prize magically increase if you mentally eliminate one of three doors).
I’ve seen people say that the way RCV shakes out can be unfair because of that, but every ballot, poll, or decision people are asked to make is informed by the choices present. In sophomore year politics they teach this with a simple example. A city council pays for a poll to see what to do with an empty lot. It comes back; 20 percent develop commercial; 20 percent homeless shelter; and 60 percent kid’s park. Well they really want commercial development so they give the city the options of commercial development and homeless shelter on the referendum and let NIMBYism handle the rest.
The thing is, even though the example is a bad faith scenario, it happens in good faith situations too. Like with Ross Perot in 1992. The mere presence of someone on the ballot shapes how people vote. For example if Trump wasn’t on the ballot people would be far less likely to vote for Biden. RCV cannot escape this, but neither can any other system of electing people. RCV is in fact meant to counter this problem.
It’s only more expensive the first time you run it and once you are comfortable with it, it can replace primaries. Meaning you actually save money by not having two elections.
And then he repeats the stupid voter line which hasn’t been a problem in the 62 voting jurisdictions RCV is in use in.