How is it crap and how does this overcomplicate any of it?
The person with the most votes does win under other voting systems I have brought up. What I want is exactly that. I my second example for instance person C has 29 votes compared to person A’s 24 votes, how is that not person C having the most votes and winning?
That’s a great argument in favor of an alternative voting system. Because we both agree that the most votes should win for each representative. Hence the added benefit of having the two rounds of voting since those additional vote preferences are taken into consideration. Through of one these alternative voting systems, we can truly say that the majority of people wanted that person for the job rather.
It’s also a great argument for score voting as well since that is only one round of voting, but you can give a score for each candidate and the candidate with the highest total score wins.
“Just because a person’s favorite choice isn’t the most popular, doesn’t mean the winning candidate is preferred by the majority of voters.”
If we’re being specific, I am acknowledging the why from the very first sentence of my original comment. I needed the details to help elaborate my point though.
To clarify though, I am not trying to cater to everyone, I’m trying to have a dialogue. People that are interested will likely want to read more, those that don’t will skim.
If I was marketing or just cared about short points I wouldn’t be so detailed, but I believe in what I am saying matters beyond just a surface level glance. Sometimes the answers are not short and sweet, sometimes to make change we have to dig in and put in some more effort.
The why is answered in the explanation, how many professors give you the answer upfront before you solve a problem? Usually they want you to be presented with the whole problem and have you work your way to finding the answer. I could spoonfeed the answer, but that lacks nuance. I’m personally tired of things being designed just for short attention spans to give a dopamine hit and then they jump to the next source of dopamine. I feel this view has degraded my own mental facilities after looking for ‘efficiency’ in language for several years now.
If my comment was a post on its own I would have included a hook for why it matters at the start, but if someone is specifically asking me to explain it I’m going to frame it differently.
Why? We’re talking about electing representatives to govern our country, not picking what movie a few people want to go watch. What do you want from a representative? You want them to reflect the consensus of the wider electorate that voted them in rather than just their smaller base. If 66.6% of the voting electorate didn’t vote for someone of a certain political spectrum in a election where that person won by getting 33.4% of the vote, then how are they the most representative option or how do they reflect the views of the majority? My example is a bit extreme, that’s what winner takes all is. The great thing about other systems is, if you personally only want to vote for one candidate, you still can. However, if you wanted to have a backup option in case your favorite lost the first round, then that’s okay too under other systems.
Even something as simple as ordering food with friends makes sense to use an alternative voting system such as approval voting. You and your friends pick all your favorite options, and you’re less likely to be upset at the results since you can show preference. Some options you might hate, some options others may hate, and other options you might all be okay with having.
Yes! Thank you for sharing this, the NPVIC is so huge and we are so close to it actually being possible.
I feel we can make it happen, especially if we continue to get the word out and reach out to our senators and representatives, then we can have momentum for it actually happen as well.
My response to the why is buried a bit tbf. The why is ‘who are we defining as the majority winner’? If we are defining it based on the current FPTP voting system, then yes the person who got the most votes in the one round of voting is the majority winner. If we define it in another system or based on who the total voting population would be happy to have as the winner, then another system would be better more often then not.
I agree there is a simple and more concise way of answering, but I saw it as a teaching moment to go a bit more in depth.
FPTP is terrible for encouraging a two party system over a long enough period of time, because it can incentivize partisan division to secure voter share, and since it often ignores the opinions of the majority of the entire electorate.
The damage of FPTP is further amplified by the House and Senate being capped on the amount of Representatives and Senators for each state. For many states, they just need to secure 51% of the voter base and it becomes winner takes all, especially so with gerrymandering. If there were Alternative Voting systems in all states and if states have had a minimum of five Representatives and five Senators per state scaled up based on population, then our country as a whole would be properly representative to how different populations throughout the country feels. It wouldn’t be just red or blue states anymore, multiple third parties would be able to flourish, and people would have congress-members in office that actually reflect their views.
I just wooshed the joke there lol.
RCV is still solid over FPTP ~>85% of the time, I’m just advocating for these other voting systems. Many people have heard of RCV, but maybe not one of these other systems. There isn’t really a universal favorite, but I feel having a dialogue about the alternatives is something we want to clarify before we commit ourselves to one without acknowledging any potential drawbacks.
Just because a person’s favorite choice isn’t the most popular, doesn’t mean the winning candidate is preferred by the majority of voters. Let’s say there are three candidates A, B, and C and their vote totals are below.
A: 20 votes
B: 18 votes
C: 15 votes
In First Past The Post A wins.
Now, let’s give voters the option to select their top two choices so they can safely pick their favorite option first and while still having a safe choice secondary pick. In this case the election results are the following:
A: 1st pick 20 votes; 2nd pick 4 votes
B: 1st pick 14 votes; 2nd pick 12 votes
C: 1st pick 19 votes; 2nd pick 10 votes
B got the least votes in this different voting system, and B gets eliminated first. Then we move onto the second round of voting to compare the total votes of A vs C. A has 24 total votes and C has 29 total votes. In this example, C wins the election as they are the candidate most preferred by a majority of the voters. The majority winner still wins as they have the votes of a plurality of the electorate.
My example is a simplified explanation for alternative voting systems, the exact mechanism for each of them differs though. I specifically support Ranked Robin, STAR, or score as the specific alternative voting systems I would prefer over FPTP, as I believe they are all more fair and have the best outcomes for the majority of people expressing their preferences.
If we want elections to be more representative of what the majority of people want, then taking in more preferences of the voters only makes sense. They have less incentive to vote strategically for the same reasons, at least under the systems I mentioned. So for a real world example, most people can safely pick a third party candidate without worrying about the spoiler effect. This would be huge for properly showing just how much true support third parties have out there, because currently they have to compete for people that vote similarly between two or more parties.
Y’all Australians really have one of the best systems with your compulsory voting and not having FPTP. I feel the only thing that would make your system better is if it was upgraded to use ranked robin or STAR voting instead, as the least liked candidate can still win in uncommon circumstances under RCV.
From what I am seeing in a few states is that some establishment Dems push back against it or tore it down, but the progressive Dem groups showed open support of it. I was tracking RCV in Nevada and Arizona specifically and there was not a recommendation to shoot it down, but the main Democratic Party in those states didn’t tell their voters to vote one way or the other from what I saw, only the progressives groups advocated for it though.
I would believe Colorado Dems shot it down though, as they did the same in a few other states. I think it’s still possible to sway public opinion and pressure certain Dems to be in support of Alternative Voting though. I don’t think there is a consensus to shoot it down 100%, but they shoot it down in instances where they might feel it threatens some of their hand picked Senate seats. If they think it would gain the party as a whole more seats on the state level or even federally I believe they could be convinced to back Alternative Voting.
On a side note, Ranked Choice specifically is only slightly better than FPTP compared to say Ranked Robin, STAR, or Score voting. I believe we should push for one of these other three alternatives to prevent uncommon instances where the least liked candidate still can win.
What you described is a big issue. I feel it shows just how much there needs to be a push for change nationally and within each of the states to lobby the Democratic Party for change. Some states have open primaries, some have closed, and others have semi-open primaries. It makes no sense for states to not just be semi-open or fully open for primaries, as closed primaries just further alienates the party from potential voters.
As someone that voted Bernie in 2016, we didn’t have the votes in 2016 for Bernie to make it through the primary. The country itself was not as progressive in 2016 as it is now imo, especially so for the Democratic base.
For Bernie to have even had a chance to win the primary, the election format would have needed to not be First Past the Post. He was a victim of vote splitting found in First Past the Post and then establishment Dems allocated their voters votes to go towards Hillary. I don’t think it was fair what happened to Bernie especially with the DNC, but I realize now it was a flaw of the system itself that makes it extremely difficult for a progressive to win a Democratic presidential primary. I think it makes zero sense why people can’t pick their favorite candidate(s) first and then pick backup ‘safe’ candidates for elections. Also there is the issue of some states excluding people not registered with a party from voting in the primary. I feel it is a bad move to prevent these voters at the primary level since non-affiliated voters are usually the ones that ultimately decide the elections and they can give input ahead of time if they would vote for that candidate in the general election.
Having ranked robin voting, STAR voting, or score voting would help prevent a popular candidate like Bernie from losing by default to a ‘safe’ establishment pick.
Edit: Trust me, I would like to be wrong about 2016 and just how progressive country as a whole was at the time. But we’re really backwards in a lot of ways, especially so back then. The bulk of older voters were at most were economically voting for Democrats, not on social or economic policy by and large.
I did. You’re taking an uncharitable reading of my comment. Nowhere in my comment did I assign blame. My comment is about the need to change the voting system, which enables more progressive and third party wins ultimately. I also included some pragmatism, as I’ve seen progressives in my state struggle to win. I did not say anything about any sort “progressives are too left for the country and party!!!” because that’s not a very nuanced take and doesn’t reflect reality.
That’s not something I would say or agree with. My statement is separate from that type of perspective and not what my comment was talking about.
As you might have guessed I’m not a voter in those states but the point I was making about it remains pretty much the same.
In this specific case it will remain to be seen, but in general this type of election matters at tackling the problem of gerrymandering is the main point I was getting at, I believe it is important not to lose the forest for the trees on this.
Gerrymandering is one of the problems, turn out is another, disenfranchisement is another, ease of voting is an additional problem, clerical errors when voting is another problem as well. There are many specific problems and it is important that we try to address each of them.
Having politicians that people feel are looking out for their best interests matters as well. You can be the perfect candidate on paper, but maybe you’re not great at messaging to your local voting base or not using the right communication channels to reach your audience. Many of these things matter when trying to get people out to vote.
If more people that lived in deep red or blue states moved to a state from Wisconsin for instance and moved to a swing district, then it could substantially help shift the tides of the subsequent elections.
A person that votes blue moving to Wisconsin can be another blue Wisconsin vote. I’m not saying a random person moving and voting without preference, but someone that wants to make a difference moving.
I think state politics are a bit different from federal as well if we want to be more grand scale. States currently aren’t wanting to go into debt or ignore a debt limit to help their state grow economically or to provide wide safety nets. Mind you it is risky for a state to do that since it works a lot better on a federal level as you’re not directly competing against other states for lost business, assuming some corporations leave when you increase the corporate tax rate on a state level.
Functionally, moving to a purple state makes a notable difference. The reason the Michigan Supreme Court race recently mattered so much was because of the courts confirming potentially gerrymandered maps. If enough people move to purple states that they shifted blue, then it could impact Federal elections which could potentially impose legislation against gerrymandering at a federal level. They could even potentially withhold federal funding, in some instances, should states refuse to use non-gerrymandered maps.
It gives more weight to their vote. It doesn’t change their situation by itself inherently, but if enough people make these types of moves it could shift the political landscape of the country.
Functionally, a lot of legislation is held back by not having enough votes in both the House and Senate, more so the Senate than the House. Personally, I would want to see the House and Senate rebalanced in the future to be a minimum of five representatives and senators per state, but then scaled up based on population. Assuming we have also changed the voting system in each state to be more representative through ranked robin voting, STAR voting, or score voting then each state will do a much better job of actually reflecting the population’s voting preferences.
Functionally, we should build a media system that people want to engage in. Changing the voting system is a core part of changing the media system as well. As you risk alienating potential voters if you demonize the other side, this would at the very least move politics aware from hyper-partisanship.
To change the media ecosystem, we need the Fairness Doctrine back and expanded to social media. This can happen to some extent on the state level, but we functionally need it on the federal level to see a lasting impact. Democrats/progressives need a majority of seats in the House and Senate to even attempt to pass something like the Fairness Doctrine. Ideally, you would want a 3-5 seat majority in the Senate and at least 10 seat majority in the House to pass a majority of the legislation you want to pass. You need a 10 seat majority in the Senate if you want your legislation to be filibuster proofed.
Economic incentives reward more left leaning politics imo. Left leaning politics is good for the people and good for businesses as well in the long run.
It depends on the state if we’re talking about legislatures that have a big enough majority that they can change the district maps quickly enough to disenfranchise voters. Those new maps usually need to be approved by the courts though. If the courts deem the new maps are gerrymandered, they can at least force the election to be off the old map used in the previous election. I would recommend doing research ahead of time if your goal is to make a voter impact. Encouraging others in your community to turn out to vote can make a difference as well.
Moving to a purple state or a disenfranchised state/district could impact future elections. While maps can be redrawn, those maps need to be approved by the courts to be able to be used. The reason I mention researching ahead of time is because you will be a new arrival in the state, the legislature doesn’t have a record necessarily of how you personally will vote. Even if they do, then you could be in a sea of voters from other political parties. Your vote can make a difference still on the city level, school board elections level, governor level, and the federal level. The state level is the most likely to be affected by gerrymandering, but you can try to not group to a left leaning area that’s easier for legislators to gerrymander out.
Personally, I think some states are close to center, some are further left and others are further right. Rather than splitting the party and the vote share, we can grassroots organize, get signatures for a ballot initiative, and change the voting system away from First Past the Post. Our voting system is what ultimately prevents viable alternative parties from appearing and is causing the “safe incumbent” neoliberals to win out over “risky” progressive picks since people only get one vote and they don’t want to have their least favorite candidate win over their favorite and their safe choice.
Organizing now matters a lot. If we change even a few more states away from First Past the Post voting, like we did with Alaska and Maine, then third parties will have much more stable ground to actually form and win elections on the state and federal level. I still think supporting incumbents in many cases make sense until we act to change the voting systems. Although rallying around potential candidates which are pushing for change can make a difference in some races.
We can try to change the voting system on the county level and city level if trying to get the state as a whole to change has not been working in your state.
Then go for the option where all the voting happens at one step based on preference. If you still want a best of two you can have the primary election earlier in the year with a score vote tally, and the two candidates that have the highest scores votes from that process then go into a head to head FPTP style for the general election.
For the record both Alaska and Maine are currently using an Alternative Voting system as well as many countries in Europe. Australia also uses an Alternative Voting system. So it can be done successfully in many countries without issue.