|
MegaZeroX posted:Serious talk: Regardless of stupid delegate systems, another thing you are all missing is that Ranked Choice is a bad system anyways and arguably the only thing worse than FTTP. Ideally, legislature should just be proportional representation (based on voting for a party and the percentages getting given delegates accordingly), while executive positions should be chosen through Fallback Voting (my favorite), or Approval/Range voting. But for single winners it really depends on what you value and what you think can go wrong. By Arrow's Theorem every single winner voting system fails something. IRV failing Monotonicity is, in general, less hosed up than than the things that can go wrong in other systems. Approval and Fallback voting are both incredibly susceptible to counter-intuitive, but seductive, strategic voting as well as to candidate nomination fuckery. And if it all worked fine it would still likely end in the same way for your three way example because in round two the libs get all your SocDem votes plus the fascist votes, but their second votes get split so they get top majority. I prefer a system that occasionally fails Monotonicity because when it does it reflects a consensus winner in a divided electorate, over one that fails Later No-harm since the latter is much more likely to mess with how people vote and campaign. Approval fails Majority loser so I don't know how anyone could imagine that's a viable system. In fallback voting you're trading the possibility of voting for someone you hate helping your candidate by knocking someone else out whose voters you hope will go to you (IRV's monotonicity failure, an edge case where the risk in voting strategically is hardly every worthwhile), for you now having to consider the same kind of thing all the way down your ballot (Falllback's later no harm failure, which comes into play much more often). Peaceful Anarchy fucked around with this message at 09:02 on Feb 20, 2020 |
#
¿
Feb 20, 2020 08:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 05:55 |
|