Molly Whitevery cool illustration of ranked choice voting and how it worked in Maine’s gubernatorial Democratic primary
via Reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/Maine/comments/1ua4e7n/sankey_diagram_of_the_democratic_gubernatorial/)
DekOfTheYautja@molly0xfff Our top priority in America should be election reform.
GhostOnTheHalfShell
AhimsaSo true!
Add ranked choice voting, get rid of gerrymandering, and stop all the other voter suppression tactics such as trying to manipulate or get rid of voting by mail.
I'm disabled (chronic illness) so I'd have a *really* hard time voting in person. Thankfully, Oregon automatically sends all registered voters a ballot via email. And I usually return the completed ballot at one of the many dropboxes.
Quasit@DekOfTheYautja @molly0xfff
Our top priority in America should be ending capitalism and getting rid of the oligarchs.
Our top priority in America should be ending capitalism and getting rid of the oligarchs.
@Quasit that's a downstream problem.
@DekOfTheYautja
Reformed elections aren't going to do anything to get us there.
The system is not reformable. Not on anything but an absolutely cosmetic level. Getting rid of the oligarchs and capitalism will take a complete revolution. And that means a general strike.
@Quasit ...yeah? It absolutely will.
How? So far all I've seen is magical thinking which never works.
@Quasit You haven't seen anything because we don't have the election reform yet... The "how" is by electing representatives that represent the will of the people instead of the will of the politicians, which equates to the will of the corporations.
The oligarchs and the Party elders run the system. Have you noticed that so-called "reformist" candidates either lose, or immediately give up their principles upon gaining office?
The oligarchs own both parties, the mass media, and most of social media. And you believe that they are going to allow candidates who oppose their interests to win?
If Bernie couldn't win and sold us out instead, what makes you think that anyone else can win?
@Quasit You're right, oligarchs own both parties, which is where RCV comes in. Because in RCV there are no "parties". No "teams". No "tribes". It's just "may the best person win".
Bernie could not win because the Dems cheated him from the party nomination. Again, in RCV there are no parties, and Bernie does not need their blessing and does not need to be primaried.
But what makes you think that the oligarchs and party leaders who won't allow genuine reform or sincere progressives to run will allow ranked choice voting?
@Quasit What makes you think they would "allow" a revolution and general strike?
They wouldn't allow it. The difference is that reform happens within the system, and revolution/general strikes come from OUTSIDE the system.
The system is under the control of the oligarchs. The people are not. That's why the oligarchs fear us.
@Quasit Exactly. They wouldn't. We have to take it. By whatever means necessary. Inside, outside, who cares what the method is?
They control inside. The DNC is a private corporation which has proclaimed proudly in court that they are not required to follow even their own rules, and that no one can make them. The court agreed.
So there's literally no way to force the DNC to accept something that they are not willing to accept. And the oligarchs are certainly not going to accept a challenge to their ownership of the DNC, nor the RNC.
By definition, outside is the only way to go. Even a brief general strike in Minnesota got action. A sustained one would bring them down.
@Quasit You say it's impossible and then simultaneously say that's exactly what you intend to do so, we're going around in circles here.
@DekOfTheYautja
You may be, but I'm not. The system is corrupt and rigged. You want to use the system to fundamentally reform the system, which has been tried many times and always failed.
I'm talking about working OUTSIDE the system to overthrow it. History shows us that that's possible. They've made general strikes illegal BECAUSE they work.
So we break the law, have a sustained general strike, and break the power of the oligarchs.
Or we can do it your way. Voting harder, keep donating to corrupt Democratic politicians who inevitably sell us out, and wonder why nothing ever seems to change.
That's what brought us fascism, and that's what brought us Trump. Not magic. The Democrats were a key part of that.
@Quasit I have no idea why you think that's "my way", I said absolutely nothing to that effect.
No, that's just the implication of everything you've said in this thread so far. So you AREN'T urging everyone to support Democratic candidates, then? If so, why not say so?
@Quasit LOL what do you mean? You expect me to say everything that I'm not saying?
Kookulainn@Quasit @DekOfTheYautja what you are missing is how ranked choice, and PR systems generally, incentivises more, smaller, political parties.
@Koochulainn @DekOfTheYautja
But you can't get ranked choice voting without the permission of the two parties at this point. They have locked out third parties quite effectively, and the DNC in particular is extremely aggressive in the courts to shut down any third-party challenge.
What's a PR system in this case? Public relations?
@Quasit @DekOfTheYautja and that is exactly why it needs to be changed. I do appreciate that changing your electoral systems (aren't they decided on a state by state basis?) is easier said than done though.
Proportional Representation system.
https://youtu.be/l8XOZJkozfI?is=H7yZyvaZNRUH5olz
The Voting System That's Actually Too Good for Politicians to Allow
Jacques Chester@Quasit @DekOfTheYautja righto, you continue hoping for revolution mate, we adults will fix it up while you’re wanking
@jacques @DekOfTheYautja
Because voting harder for liberal Democrats has been SO effective for the last 45 years. So who's living in a dream world?
Because voting harder for liberal Democrats has been SO effective for the last 45 years. So who's living in a dream world?
Dave Freedman@Freedman There are basically infinite alternatives.
Jeremy@molly0xfff This is great. Will be really interesting to see how it shakes out in Alaska this year. I think RCV voting reform is on the ballot in #illinois this year right? @FairVoteIL @paige is it on the ballot anywhere else?
Michael Westergaard
DNA schedule@molly0xfff the all time classic explanation (for Australians, using Australian terminology) is ‘You Can’t “Waste” Your Vote!’: https://www.chickennation.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/YouCantWasteYourVote_A4-GREYSCALE-300dpi_FOR-PRINT.pdf
Roger Ap Gwillian
acm@molly0xfff very cool! I'd love for Philadelphia to do this for mayoral primaries, as we have a tendency to have a winner with like 32% of the vote, and the outcomes might involve more buy-in this other way!
Bill Zaumen@acm_redfox @molly0xfff Don't use ranked-choice voting. To see why, read up on Arrow's impossibility theorem. We almost had a failure in California where there was a chance that all the Democrats would be eliminated in the election for Governor because there were two Republicans and a lot more Democrats in the race. Democrats far outnumber Republicans in California.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem
Scott Starkey@bzdev @acm_redfox @molly0xfff
One thing you did not do is recommend something better than Ranked Choice Voting. We know that First-Past-the-Post is bad, and mathematically leads to only 2 parties winning. RCV seems to be less bad.
Also, I don't think California's system is RCV. If I'm not mistaken, it's simply the top two candidates go to the main election - which as you've demonstrated - can be problematic.
traecer@ScottStarkey @bzdev @acm_redfox @molly0xfff yeah, CA's problem is the jungle primary system, not RCV
@traecer @ScottStarkey @acm_redfox @molly0xfff I provided a link to a description of a well-known theorem. From that article: "The result is often cited in discussions of voting rules,[5] where it shows no ranked voting rule can eliminate the spoiler effect."
Whether the election is partisan or non-partisan doesn't matter: you fundamentally have the same problem.
Instead of arguing, read the article.
Kevin Neely 
@bzdev @traecer @ScottStarkey @acm_redfox @molly0xfff I think "spoiler" needs to be better defined. What often happens in RCV is that the second-most popular candidate gets elected, as is shown in the diagram. I'd posit that this is a good thing, as it will most times lead to an elected official that is palatable to an overall greater percentage of the population, thus reducing partisan, radical behaviors we see so often in #USpol.
However, as has been said elsewhere in the thread, this doesn't really impact the "danger" you're pointing out in California's gubernatorial race. Rather, the nonpartisan primary is the real culprit for almost having two Republicans square off in the fall.
@bzdev @molly0xfff We have party-specific primaries, like a sane state/city, so that's not an issue.
@bzdev the goal of RCV is not to elect Democrats, it's to elect representatives that best represent the people's wishes.
Todd Knarr@bzdev @acm_redfox @molly0xfff Californiaca primaries don't use RCV. It's "top two go to a runoff". With RCV the outcome you fear can't happen because to win one of the Republicans would have to end up with an outright majority.
RCV does have a flaw but it's one that can affect the outcome only in exceptionally weird and rare circumstances
JTW@tknarr @bzdev @acm_redfox @molly0xfff the problem is that the flaw of instant runoff voting (which is the system being marketed as RCV) arises exactly when the "spoiler" candidate becomes viable. It happened in Alaska in 2022: Begich (center-right) was preferred over Peltola (center-left) by a majority of voters and over Palin (right wing) by a (different) majority. But because he had fewer first choice votes he was eliminated and Peltola was elected over Palin (who was the spoiler).
@jtwcornell91 @bzdev @acm_redfox @molly0xfff It seems like that is working as intended: Begich was the first choice of the fewest voters, so he was dropped and his supporters' votes went to their second-choice candidate. Had either Peltola or Palin been dropped, a larger number of voters would've been relegated to their second-choice candidate. The outcome is the candidate who's the highest-ranked choice for the largest number of voters wins.
@tknarr @jtwcornell91 @acm_redfox @molly0xfff Frankly, you guys don't understand what was proven decades ago. It was that there are cases where any procedure for this type of election fails. Those cases vary depending on the procedure being used. Sometimes it works, but there are *always* cases where it doesn't.
Citing a case where it works merely shows that either you didn't bother to read up on the theorem or that you didn't understand it.
@bzdev @jtwcornell91 @acm_redfox @molly0xfff Yes there are cases where it fails. The same applies to the current system. The failure cases for RCV are rarer and for practical purposes require collusion between voters to force the outcome. I notice you haven't suggested a system with _better_ outcomes than RCV, which is probably because per analysis there aren't any except possibly rank-weighted points.
@tknarr @bzdev @acm_redfox @molly0xfff a candidate who beats every other candidate head to head is called the Condorcet winner, and failing to elect such a candidate is what has got instant runoff repealed in the past, setting back electoral reform. OTOH, FairVote, which is lobbying for IRV under the name RCV, is also working to replace single-member gerrymandered districts with multi-member districts which could be filled proportionally, which is the real solution.
@jtwcornell91 @bzdev @acm_redfox @molly0xfff I think you're falling prey to taking polls as indicative of voting, which they aren't. If he was the first choice of more voters than either Peltola or Palin, why did he get the fewest first-choice votes of the three?
@tknarr @jtwcornell91 @acm_redfox @molly0xfff In a separate toot, I provided an example of voting on a restaurant: in that example, if the vote was Italian versus Mexican, Italian would win. If it was Italian versus Chinese, Italian would win. With all three and an instant run off election, Italian was eliminated. If you come up with some fix, but still meet the conditions where Arrow's theorem applies, you will have a different case where it fails.
@bzdev @jtwcornell91 @acm_redfox @molly0xfff Thing is, neither of your two represent the actual election. Try this: have everyone rank the three choices 1st, 2nd and 3rd. Then, for each ballot, give their 1st choice 3 points, their 2nd 2 and their 3rd 1 point. If a choice isn't ranked, it gets 0 points. Winner is the choice with the most points.
@tknarr @jtwcornell91 @acm_redfox @molly0xfff The point is that there is a mathematical proof that what you are touting just won't work in general - there will always be failures for some cases. I gave you a pointer to an article describing the theorem. If you think there is a flaw in it, you can become very, very famous by finding a mistake in the proof.
@bzdev @jtwcornell91 @acm_redfox @molly0xfff Icm familiar with the theory. The problem is that we aren't dealing with a theory. We're dealing with practical reality where simply not having elections because we can't find a perfect solution isn't feasible.
As I said, the failure case requires a very small number of ballots and deliberate calculation to force it to happen. With any significant number of ballots and independent voters you never come anywhere near it.
@bzdev @jtwcornell91 @acm_redfox @molly0xfff I'd note that something similar occurs in poker. I can quote you the odds on being dealt a royal flush in a hand of 5-card draw. In reality nobody cares and just assumes the odds are zero because a) they're so long you won't play anywhere near enough hands and b) if you did get dealt one, the pot won't offer good enough odds to pay for all your losses.
@tknarr @jtwcornell91 @acm_redfox @molly0xfff Recently, we had a three-way race in a primary after our congress person retired. The system nearly failed - a tie between 2nd and 3rd place occurred, which was resolved in a recount. The tie involved 30,249 votes each for two of the candidates. During the recount, they found a 12-vote error in which those votes were tallied but not counted due to an operator error.
So don't tell me it works!
.https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-05-01/ca-16-results-recount-tk-tk
@bzdev @jtwcornell91 @acm_redfox @molly0xfff Sounds like it worked as designed. The recount would've happened even if it weren't a tie due to the slim margin. The recount found the error, it was corrected and the correct outcome resulted.
Checks like recounts are part of the system and can't be ignored.
@tknarr @jtwcornell91 @acm_redfox @molly0xfff LOL - it nearly *failed* as designed: the design did not consider the possibility of a tie and how to resolve that. Finding an error merely meant that they were lucky.
@bzdev @jtwcornell91 @acm_redfox @molly0xfff IIRC if you look deeper into the laws around the primaries there is a provision for handling ties (coin toss, as is typical for elections). And I notice you don't note that _all_ election systems have the same problem with ties, and require similar provisions for resolving them. So again you're complaining that systems aren't perfect but offering no alternatives that aren't worse.
@tknarr @jtwcornell91 @acm_redfox @molly0xfff Is Todd serious? I suggested an alternative that is (a) understandable, (b) easy to implement, and (c) is one for which there is no spoiler effect. The winning candidate apparently funded the recount, apparently because the rules for a tie meant that all three would be in the general election & the guy with the most votes preferred to have one opponent. That is not good for public confidence in the fairness of an election.
@tknarr @jtwcornell91 @acm_redfox @molly0xfff More accurately, the winning candidate's supporters funded the recount - I ran into the 512 character limit and couldn't correct the original. This can skew the election: it is possibly cheaper to run attack ads targeting one candidate than two.
@bzdev @jtwcornell91 @acm_redfox @molly0xfff Things like multi-seat districts have their own problems which have been documented. The biggest one is that since the elections are for _parties_, not representatives, it further disconnects the representatives from the voters. This is the last thing we want because the biggest problems come when reps hew to the party line over their constituents' views.