Voting Theory

Post Reply New Topic

I had a math teacher a while ago who raved about the idea of instant runoff voting.

Let's get out of the way that Arrow's theorem states that ANY system of voting is unfair.

Now the idea of instant runoff would require that rather than choosing one candidate over another, EACH candidate is ranked on a ballot in order of preference. Then, say Candidate #4 has the fewest "1st" votes - he's taken out, and on every ballot with #4 ranked 1st, the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th candidates are bumped up a ranking. The same process of elimination goes until there are only 2 candidates, and one of them ranks on top. In theory it sounds nice, but there's some roadblocks.

This causes some problems because it makes the ballot more cumbersome, and it requires people take a longer time to consider their vote. But supposedly the result's a better representation of people's overall preference.

True or crap?

eh, i had a teacher who liked the idea of instant. i never really cared for the "instant" part, why not just have a regular run off like two weeks later? By itself I don't think it would really help third party candidates at all.

I happen to like this idea quite a bit, among other things it really does add to the viability of third parties by allowing people to vote for them without feeling that they've thrown their vote away on a pipe dream. To use an infamous example to illustrate the point, consider the situation in Florida during the 2000 presidential elections, where it's been heavily speculated that Ralph Nader cost Al Gore the election ("other" factors are a whole other thread) by acting as a "spoiler", drawing the votes of people who would have otherwise voted Gore and thus benefiting Bush. Had IRV been used, those people could have voted for Nader as their first choice and Gore as their second, so if (when) Nader was eliminated, rather than their votes having been "wasted", they automatically would have been awarded to their second choice, Gore. This system would allow people to avoid the conflict of voting for the longshot candidate that they actually like, or holding their nose to vote the lesser of the two evils they feel is more likely to win, a very legitimate criticism of American politics. I see no real downside, especially with voting machines making the system more automated and allowing a structured vote through a simple change in software. Further, notice that most of the opposition to instant run-off systems comes from the two major parties, a sign in and of itself that it's probably a good idea.

Not even that, but it'd stop the bitching over a 3rd party "stealing" votes from one of the big two.

It's not that third parties "steal" votes that's the problem, it's that people are afraid to vote for third parties for fear of letting the greater evil from one of the major parties win. Say in an election the candidates are a Republican I don't particularly like, I Democrat I hate slightly more than the Republican, and an independent candidate who I like better than either of them. Under the current system, voting for the 3rd party increases the chance of my worst outcome (the Dem winning) by robbing my second choice of my vote, where as Instant Run Off would allow me to vote for the 3rd party without having to risk increasing the chance of my worst outcome. Make sense?

I don't understand the need for the instant part. Elections are complicated enough as it is without some sort of weird ranking system. It should just be 1 man = 1 vote. A traditional runoff would be just fine if it was felt to be necessary which right now it isn't.

It can be a problem, if I see no difference between parties other than my "supported" one.

However, it's also a problem in the regular system. Some people will say I'm crazy, but I honestly think it's irresponsible that people I know just randomly choose a party in the day they vote.

Let's say there are four candidates. One is considered a conservative, the other one a liberal or something like that, the third one is moderate, and the fourth one is... George Bush. And let's say the population of the voters is made up of:
1. Extreme leftists
2. Moderate leftists
3. Moderate rightists (is it a word?)
4. Extreme rightists
(hate definitions, just to show my point)
Groups 2 and 3 want to vote for the moderate one, and if so, they will win.
But... Group 1 votes for Hillary, and group 4 votes for Sarah Palin. The moderate people of both sides are afraid that they will lose the power to the rival party, because there are rumours that they are convinced by the extremists. And some of the extremists even want to vote for the moderate one, to stop the other party's candidate.
It happens a lot in parliament elections in other countries. What I think is that the best solution would be to give two votes. Otherwise, you will vote because you're afraid, and not for the person you believe in.

Now, think about the US elections for presidency - I have no idea, but I guess there are some people who would vote for Nader, let's say, but don't because he doesn't have a chance. Now that can clarify his amount of popular support.

By what definition of fairness?

IRV is undoubtedly an improvement over our current system, but I doubt third parties would be able to succeed even then. Steve Strogatz recently did a guest column in the New York Times (titled "The Enemy of my Enemy") which analyzed networks and showed that there is no way for a three-faction network to be stable, ie if you have three parties, two of them will unite against the common enemy of the other party. The most stable state is either the trivial case where everyone is allied with everyone, or the case where there is a clear polarized split between exactly two rival factions.

I think the question is not about succeeding in the first place, rather showing they have some support, if they do.

I'm not sure the most stable state is the best, also. Reminds me of that RATM video for "Sleep Now in the Fire", that showed both candidates (Bush and Gore) saying the same things. There is also "in between" a lot of the times. If you have only two parties, and let's say they don't say the same things - even then it doesn't necessarily fits your position. There are more than two voices, after all. I never understood the two-party system, in most European countries, at least, there are many parties, and I don't see them fall apart once a year...

I'm also not sure what's the problem with two parties uniting. That's how coallition works. It says the biggest party has to give in to some requirements of the party it chooses to form the coallition with, and so at least they get something for their voters, even if they're not the biggest party. In addition, once the ruling party has less than 50% it's easier to bring them down - and sometimes it's necessary. I'm not saying that it's perfect, but I don't think you have to be afraid of it...

They form coalitions, effectively dividing themselves into two factions.


That's basically how it works here: there are different groups within both major parties, and either a Democrat or a Republican must make concessions to various groups to secure their support. Different voting blocs may switch party allegiance, which is roughly equivalent to a new coalition forming.

We don't end up with a whole lot of functional difference between two-party and multi-party systems.

In Europe? Not exactly. If a far-right party and a far-left one are both in the opposition, they would each work for their own interests. Also coallition parties work for their interests. They aren't "united", they just sit together if they're in, or stay completely divided if out.


So I learned something new. That's good.

But I still see a difference, as some parties would never be part of the big ones.
Israel's prime minister wasn't very happy to sit with some parties that are more right-wing than he is, and would make him look extreme. On the other hand, in a two-party system, my supported party (the only Jewish-Arabic one) would never be in, because it's policies are "radical". Yet they're in, and they do pass laws regarding social rights, enviroment, etc.

Can the groups switch allegiance after the vote? Isn't that a bit of fooling the public?
(It's a problem in other systems as well, of course, with parties promising not to join the coallition, and then joining in anywas, for instance)
I also think there's a difference because the coallition here is decided after the elections, and not before. It can also change before the next elections.

Much cheaper, to name just one advantage. It's not complicated, instead of placing an X next to your one choice, you just place numbers next to several, the added "complication" is trivial compared to holding multiple run-offs, and I doubt even elderly Floridians could screw it up too badly.

No, but the politicians do. The only thing that can potentially keep them in line is the threat of reprisal at the next election, but the electorate tends to have a short memory.

Well, that's worldwide...

Exactly.

The Western powers adopted that system of voting for Republika Srpska in a bid to prevent a repeat of the 1998 election when the Radical Party's Nikola Poplasen was elected with the support of Radovan Karadzic's Serbian Democrats - the Western powers' decision to "fire" that elected leader and chase him from office in March 1999 was just a bit embarassing. They hoped that the Muslim voters, of which there were many, would put their second place votes in the column of the "moderate" candidate such as Zivko Rasidic or Milorad Dodik, and push them ahead of the "ultranationalist" candidate. In 2000, that candidate was the Serbian Democrats' Mirko Sarovic. The Muslims had two candidates. The Muslims who voted for Muslim Candidate A voted Muslim Candidate B as second choice and vice versa. Sarovic was elected.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has expressed interest in such a system for voting for Members of Parliament. As it stands, if there are three candidates or more someone can get in with 30% of the vote, as long as they have a plurality. The Liberal Democrats also support this idea, and there is talk of having a referendum on this. Conventional wisdom is that the Liberal Democratic voters are more inclined to put Labour as their number 2 instead of the Conservatives, and that Labour voters are more inclined to put the LIberal Democrats as number two instead of the Conservatives, thus putting ridings where Conservatives otherwise would win pluralities would instead end up in either the Labour or LDP columns.

Last edited by xenon13 on 17 Feb 2010, 10:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.