Alternate Voting Systems

[triadruid]

So a thread in diermuid's journal has made me think about the way we run elections in this country (I'd like to say it was due to lulumay's candidate for office, but I hadn't noticed her journal yet). I had become a recent fan of the Instant Runoff Voting system, but upon further inspection it seems to have some Seriously Weird™ problems, like lowering someone's ranking causing them to win, etc.

In the process I came across something called Condorcet voting. Initially this looked complicated as all Hel (pairwise voting? matrices in the ballot-box?), but then I actually found a site that would explain it here.

And then there's this essay on mathematical models of different voting systems, which just makes my little geek heart flutter, and this election site where you can set up your own Condorcet election.

Initial reactions:

• Condorcet seems to gravitate toward a central, compromise candidate. It does mathematically seem to pan out from the brief looking-over I've given it.



• Instant Runoff seems to gravitate toward polarizing, highly partisan candidates. However because of the mathematical idiosyncracies, it's hard to tell what's strategy and what isn't.



• I'd like to try it out sometime, whether it be a computer simulation or an actual election (could use the site above). Unfortunately most of the elections I usually can operate some control over (even straw polls) are too small to give a meaningful sample, and I don't have the time to code a simulation right now...



• And look: Now there's a simulation going based on the 2004 election! Go vote Condorcet-style!



• Any system we go for has to be simple, or our voting percentages will go down further. Either of these satisfy that, by doing all of the calculating behind the scenes, leaving the voter only needing to rank before the algorithms are applied.



• All of this is moot anyway, since Americans will never choose something created by a Frenchman in this day and age! :P



• Maybe we can call it the Concordant Voting system, which is what my brain keeps trying to call it anyway...



Anyone else heard of this, or have mathematical/political/psychological/sociological/theological input?

Comments

[zylch.livejournal.com]

Any system we go for has to be simple, or our voting percentages will go down further.

Depends. If I thought that my vote actually had any effect, as I probably would if we switched to one of these systems, then my personal voting percentage would go waaaaay up. Hell, if we got rid of the electoral college and made it a direct election my percentage would go up, even without adding in all the maths. Or if all the state adopted a proportional division of their electoral votes, that too would help. As it is, there's not much point. I'm a Kansas resident, and unless they develop a new lethal virus that targets Republicans Kansas' electoral votes will be going to Bush.

Unfortunately that's a different issue

[triadruid.livejournal.com]

Note that I'm not disagreeing with you

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<i.per>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

Note that I'm not disagreeing with you <i.per se</i>, but as I was so vehemently reminded in early 2001, we still are a federalist society, which is arguably not a bad idea for a country as large and diverse as this one.

But as bad as it is to be a liberal in Kansas or a conservative in Massachusetts, how much different would it be if that additional 46% that WAS eligible voted in 2000? That's nearly a million voters in 2000, when the margin was only 225,000. How much of that percentage think as you do, that their one vote can't possibly count?

I'm so tired of voter apathy...then again, <a href="http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=ghormenghast">my NationStates nation</a>'s first decision was mandatory participation in elections, so you can see where I'm going with this. ;)

Re: Unfortunately that's a different issue

[zylch.livejournal.com]

well, there's apathy and then there's apathy. I'm certainly not one of those who just can be bothered to stop watching football long enough to make it to my precinct's poll. Think of it like this: some people don't ride the bus because they're at home watching TV. Some people don't ride the bus because they're protesting unfair bus company policies. It's not the best analogy in the world, but it highlights the difference between active and passive apathy.

active vs. passive apathy

[triadruid.livejournal.com]

Yep - which is why I'm going to work for featherynscale electoral campaign just as soon as she changes her name to "None of the Above". If you had to at least make some decision, even to not make a decision, it might help....

I've gotten the 'mandatory voting' question twice more in my N-S existence now....still choosing it every time. Wonder if that boosts or hurts civil rights, in their worldview...

Re: Unfortunately that's a different issue

[zylch.livejournal.com]

Oh, and my nation-state's first decision was to outlaw election entirely, so that I can pass laws promoting freedom by decree.

Re: Unfortunately that's a different issue

[featherynscale.livejournal.com]

I'm so tired of voter apathy...then again, my NationStates nation's first decision was mandatory participation in elections, so you can see where I'm going with this. ;)

Erm... shadow government of people who show up, anybody?

[featherynscale.livejournal.com]

Admittedly, I'm skimming the site you provide, as I'm trying to do about ten things at once, but it seems to me on first blush that the Condorcet method would speed the collapse of all politicians toward the center - not that this is always a bad thing, but it does kind of screw over anybody who, oh, you know, wants to change anything. I'm somewhat in favor of encouraging pols to campaign on different viewpoints myself, but again, I'm a third-party vote-waster, so what do I know?

That's kinda what I want to see

[triadruid.livejournal.com]

The Condorcet system seems to skew toward concensus, along the lines of "the government that governs least, governs best", which I can respect on certain levels. But if you actually put it in play with, say, the 2000 Presidential election, what would happen?

Interesting thought experiment.

Re: rabid voters

[triadruid.livejournal.com]

Another test to conduct if/when we do this little thought experiment: What about 'My way or the highway!' voters who only will vote for one person, ever (the Lyndon LaRouche sort of folks). Does their refusal to score anyone below #1 significantly affect the turnout, even if they're voting for an eventual 'loser'? Or is it a strengthener for their candidate?

This occurred to me because I realized that not everyone votes the way you and I do; some only care about one thing, one person, one image..

Re: rabid voters

[featherynscale.livejournal.com]

I don't know - I hadn't figured that into my thinking about the thing, really... what percentage of people do you think actually fall into that category? (My first instinct was to say "not many", but then, you know, vote Bush and save us from the queers... So maybe a lot.)

Interesting to see how big a proportion of these folks it would take to significantly alter the results.

This is going to be a thing we're going to have to do sometime, or we'll never know, I suppose. Mmmmmmm.....research. I'm excited. :)