Just a Thought

I would like to propose that The North Pacific, like some real-life nations, turn to ranked-choice voting. Unlike real-life nations though, I would like to propose a different take on how this system would work. Essentially, depending on the number of candidates for a given position, voters would rank the candidates for that position from most desirable to least desirable. Their vote for the candidate they considered most desirable would be worth as many votes as there were candidates for that position. This would continue with each candidate until the candidate they considered least favorable would only receive one vote, however they could also choose not to rank candidates they considered unfavorable at all. Here is an example:

Candidates for Position:
Kane Doe
John Doe
Loe Doe

All of these ballots in this system:
First Choice is Assigned 3 votes
Second Choice is Assigned 2 votes
Third Choice is Assigned 1 vote

Ballot 1:
1. Kane Doe
2. John Doe
3. Loe Doe

Ballot 2:
1. John Doe
2. Kane Doe
3. Loe Doe

Ballot 3:
1. Loe Doe
2. Kane Doe
3. John Doe

Results:
Kane Doe: 7 votes
John Doe: 6 votes
Loe Doe: 5 votes

Results under Normal Voting:
Kane Doe: 1 vote
John Doe: 1 vote
Loe Doe: 1 vote

As you can see, in a normal voting system, there would be a tie of votes among the candidates, therefore most likely causing a runoff election. In this proposed system, although Kane Doe was not the first choice of every voter, since she was the second choice of two voters and the first choice of one, she wins the election. If implemented, and especially at the scale of TNP elections, this system should almost completely eliminate the need for runoff elections.

I am proposing this in order to see what sort of support such a system has here. I also want to know if anyone has suggestions to improve this or perhaps favors a different system altogether.

Who are you proposing this to? The only body that can take that proposal up is the Regional Assembly, and this is the Agora.

bootsie:

Who are you proposing this to? The only body that can take that proposal up is the Regional Assembly, and this is the Agora.

Click to expand...

I understand, I am just trying to get a general consensus of how popular/good this bill would be and I would prefer not to write a bill as lengthy as this one would have to be before actually knowing if that bill had any chance of passing.

I would prefer just simple ranked voting where whoever receives the least number of votes is dropped off and whoever had them ranked as their first choice moves onto their second selection.

As a note on your current suggestion, must they rank every individual? If not, the opportunity for a voter to cause a greater disparity in their vote is possible.

For example, if I wanted John Doe to win and really did not want the other two candidates to win, I should only vote for John Doe. This would increase his votes by 3 relative to the other candidates. If I ranked all the candidates, I would increase John's votes relatively by 1 to whoever I place second and by 2 relative to whoever I ranked third.

Not saying that this is a good or bad thing, just something to consider if you have not already.

I prefer this system in real life, and I am certain our election commission could 100% handle this. Personally I would support a bill on this (amending the way we do elections as per... whichever of our bajillions of laws has that).

Like Praetor said, I would just plunk for my favorite.

Okay, so looking at the comments thus far, I've decided to make the following change to my proposal:

You do not have to rank every candidate.

I'm also going to wait a little longer for more public input before I decide whether or not to draft a bill.

I don't like what is basically a points system for voting, but I do like the Instant Runoff procedure that Praetor's system basically is.

Sil Dorsett:

I don't like what is basically a points system for voting, but I do like the Instant Runoff procedure that Praetor's system basically is.

Click to expand...

Agreed. The points system is too open to "strategic" voting, where to vote optimally a voter would have to look at how others are voting and use that to vote potentially differently from how they would actually want to vote (see: third-party voters voting for primary parties so their vote has a larger effect in first-past-the-post voting.)
Praetor's instant runoff would not encourage strategic voting to nearly the degree this proposal does. Voters should be incentivized to vote how they want, rather than voting strategically and worrying about how other voters are voting.

Darcania:

Agreed. The points system is too open to "strategic" voting, where to vote optimally a voter would have to look at how others are voting and use that to vote potentially differently from how they would actually want to vote (see: third-party voters voting for primary parties so their vote has a larger effect in first-past-the-post voting.)
Praetor's instant runoff would not encourage strategic voting to nearly the degree this proposal does. Voters should be incentivized to vote how they want, rather than voting strategically and worrying about how other voters are voting.

Click to expand...

I just want to ask, how would someone go about strategically voting in this system? (This is not to criticize your point; I'm just genuinely curious)

abc:

I just want to ask, how would someone go about strategically voting in this system? (This is not to criticize your point; I'm just genuinely curious)

Click to expand...

Praetor already said above.

Darcania:

Praetor already said above.

Click to expand...

Ah, I see. Perhaps allowing voters not to rank unfavorable candidates is a bad idea.

I don't think any form of points-based system is a good idea. It's inherently arbitrary since you're assigning an arbitrary number to a voter's opinion. There may be reasoning behind a points-based system, and it may seem simple, but in the end it's still arbitrary mathematics applied to something as nuanced as opinion, and you will find people taking advantage of the math for what they want from it - just see basically any game with a win condition.

I don't think it's fair to call these arbitrary numbers. Each citizen still gets the exact same number of votes; the main difference is that they get to distribute those votes to multiple candidates. Certainly, some people could take advantage of the math, but at the end of the day it's still citizens voting and choosing who they are voting for.

It doesn't matter if it's "fair" to call them arbitrary... they still are. Voter's preferences, a varied and fluid dataset, are being given numbers according to an arbitrary system put in place via arbitrary standards. Those standards may make sense at a glance and the numbers may have reasons behind them but it's fundamentally arbitrary. And at the end of the day it is absolutely not citizens voting and choosing who they're voting for, because at a certain point smart or determined voters will not vote according purely to their personal preference and instead vote strategically. Voters shouldn't have to worry about how others are voting or how to game the system - they should be focused solely on what their preferences are, what only their preferences are, and have a simple, solid means of expressing those preferences. One voter, one vote - one voter, one "point".

I cannot think of any election IRL that uses a points system like you suggested. On the other hand there are plenty of places that use the Instant Runoff voting system, and I would support that.

About whether voters should rank all candidates, I think we should allow them to rank any number of candidates, as long as they are in order. If someone's preferred candidate is eliminated, and there are no further preferences, then the vote will just be discarded instead of passing on to the next preference.

I see where you're coming from, but the point of this system is to eliminate runoff elections, not create more of them. The lack of a system in use does not make that system inherently bad. Perhaps a compromise could be reached where only the top 3 candidates were ranked. Furthermore, perhaps this system could only apply when 3 or more candidates were running for a particular position.

In regards to what Darcania is saying: this system is not arbitrary. Arbitrary means that it is without "rhyme or reason" which this is not. This system has two purposes: to drastically reduce the need for runoff elections and to actually expand democracy by allowing voters the chance to express more than just their top choice. You also talk of "voting strategically". Don't most voters do that now? And as I said before, it is still voters who are voting strategically. Even then, if voters want to vote strategically, they're still likely going to vote for their preferred candidates because what incentive do they have to make any other candidate win?

abc:

I see where you're coming from, but the point of this system is to eliminate runoff elections, not create more of them.

Click to expand...

Praetor's method makes runoffs instantaneous, without requiring a re-vote. While it's called "instant runoff", it does still eliminate runoffs entirely.

abc:

Arbitrary means that it is without "rhyme or reason" which this is not.

Click to expand...

In English, words have multiple meanings. If you pick the top definition from Google Search and use that to refute a point, then that is a failing in your argument, not mine. For your convenience, however, this definition is the one I am using:

There is no way to assign point values to voter preferences in a way that reflects the intrinsic nature of those preferences. They are simply not compatible.

abc:

This system has two purposes: to drastically reduce the need for runoff elections...

Click to expand...

Instant Runoff does this without the downsides.

abc:

...and to actually expand democracy by allowing voters the chance to express more than just their top choice.

Click to expand...

I do not doubt the purpose of this proposal. I doubt its methods and the implementation.

abc:

You also talk of "voting strategically". Don't most voters do that now?

Click to expand...

Yes, and I've mentioned this above. We should not replace a faulty system with another faulty system.

abc:

Even then, if voters want to vote strategically, they're still likely going to vote for their preferred candidates because what incentive do they have to make any other candidate win?

Click to expand...

No, they are not; not necessarily. I've mentioned above one instance (the third-party voter comment), and Praetor has mentioned an instance here (as a more specific example, a voter refusing to list a second-favorite candidate as their second preference since it may cause that preference to gain the two points needed to exceed their primary three-point preference).

1. My bad, that is true.
2. I was going by the common definition; I had no way of knowing which definition you were going by however.
3. Except that it only counts the second choices of the segment of voters who happen to vote for the least popular candidate.
4. Okay.
5. This is arguably less faulty.
6. I already mentioned that I had changed my stance on allowing voters to simply not vote for a candidate they considered undesirable. I now have a stance slightly different from my original one. A voter would rank their top three choices of candidates, thus preventing them from simply not voting for candidates they don't like to gain an advantage in the system.

abc:

2. I was going by the common definition; I had no way of knowing which definition you were going by however.

Click to expand...

Like many English sentences, context provides clue as to the intended meaning of a word in a sentence when said word has many definitions. The word "run" has well over a dozen definitions, for example.

Edit: Had you clarified, instead, that you were having difficulty understanding my point due to your understanding not making the best of sense, I would have clarified and moved on. However, you attempted to dismiss the entire point instead using that sole definition when others existed, without even attempting to apply the other definitions, hence why I took issue with your argument on that front.

abc:

3. Except that it only counts the second choices of the segment of voters who happen to vote for the least popular candidate.

Click to expand...

I don't see an issue with this. It's meant to heavily prioritize a voter's first preference, as voting systems should do. Second choices and so on are only provided to make runoffs unnecessary.

abc:

5. This is arguably less faulty.

Click to expand...

I argue it is more so.

abc:

6. I already mentioned that I had changed my stance on allowing voters to simply not vote for a candidate they considered undesirable. I now have a stance slightly different from my original one. A voter would rank their top three choices of candidates, thus preventing them from simply not voting for candidates they don't like to gain an advantage in the system.

Click to expand...

And if they only like one candidate? Would they only supply those three points? If so, a voter who thus only supplies their primary candidate would have exactly half the voting power of another voter who provides all three. The former's vote is only worth three points, while the latter's is worth six. However, I don't intend to get too caught up in the tangential details, because the inherent foundation of this proposal, that of assigning arbitrary points to voter preferences, is what I am addressing.

---

In any case, it seems you're determined to go down this route with your proposal. I've given you my thoughts, as have others, and despite many pointing out the flaws with this proposal and offering alternatives it looks like you intend to stick with the flawed foundation of a points system with some tangential amendments and concessions when they come up (e.g. point 6 above). Any proposal that assigns points like this I will be against, flat out, due to the reasons I said above, and those are my thoughts on your proposal, whatever form it ends up taking.

Only one thing I want to address in the above post: a voter would have to assign a ranking to at least 3 candidates, so no, no voter would ever have more voting power than another voter.

That being said, I will review everything stated in this thread tomorrow. If I look back at it and realize I am making a mistake in pursuing this specific system, then I am happy to admit that I was wrong. If not, I will seek opinions of others on this topic as, while your opinion is important, it is also important to consider the opinions of other citizens.

abc:

Only one thing I want to address in the above post: a voter would have to assign a ranking to at least 3 candidates, so no, no voter would ever have more voting power than another voter.

Click to expand...

Read again - I was raising one point, raising a hypothetical solution, and raising a counterpoint to that solution. The initial question with your solution was what would happen if a voter had only one preference and disliked all other options.

Darcania:

And if they only like one candidate? Would they only supply those three points? If so, a voter who thus only supplies their primary candidate would have exactly half the voting power of another voter who provides all three.

Click to expand...

I'd like to also re-emphasize (since this section was poorly read) that from my point of view the specific implementations don't matter.

Darcania:

However, I don't intend to get too caught up in the tangential details, because the inherent foundation of this proposal, that of assigning arbitrary points to voter preferences, is what I am addressing.

Click to expand...

---

abc:

If not, I will seek opinions of others on this topic as, while your opinion is important, it is also important to consider the opinions of other citizens.

Click to expand...

By all means. Despite what others have claimed about me, I have never implied that my opinion is the only one that matters, nor that I speak for all citizens. I simply gave my own opinions and thoughts, and separately pointed out that in this instance I was not the only one against the proposal and offering alternatives.

As a resident of a country where IR is widely used, I would support such a measure. I disagree with using the points but would also support each voters having to rank every candidate, rather than being able to choose just one. That said, a quota system would also be worth trying, where each voter had to rank at least [x] candidates on the ballot.

First, sorry for taking so long to respond.
Second, I have looked through this thread at the arguments of others and the general consensus and have came to the conclusion that the ranked-choice voting system as proposed by Praetor is the best option. Thus, I would like to proceed forward with drafting a bill to implement this system. If anyone would be willing to help in drafting this bill, please let me know. I'd be more than happy to have the extra help.

abc:

First, sorry for taking so long to respond.
Second, I have looked through this thread at the arguments of others and the general consensus and have came to the conclusion that the ranked-choice voting system as proposed by Praetor is the best option. Thus, I would like to proceed forward with drafting a bill to implement this system. If anyone would be willing to help in drafting this bill, please let me know. I'd be more than happy to have the extra help.

Click to expand...

You might want to take a look at this.

What about simply allowing the plurality winner to claim victory versus having runoffs at all? Yes, would take some significant change to our laws, but why not?

Runoffs have always seemed quite semantic to me. Forcing a majority winner when the "winner" of said runoffs is still not the 1st choice of a majority.

For example:
Candidate A: 28%
Candidate B: 29%
Candidate C: 23%
Candidate D: 20%

Simply speaking, no one candidate has the support of more than 50% of the voters. Let's say we drop off candidate D and have a runoff or ranked-choice and have the following situation:

Candidate A: 42%
Candidate B: 33%
Candidate C: 25%

Still not at a majority, but a different "winner" has emerged. Ok so we have another runoff or go down the line of our ranked-choice [this all assumes that with rank-choice we force valid ballots to contain a ranking of all candidates]

Candidate A: 51%
Candidate B: 49%

And yay, we have a winner!

To me, I'd rather just have someone win at the onset even if that is a winner who has less than 50% of the voter. I know this is a minority opinion but I feel we overly complicate things at times and if the voters are split amongst candidates I say we do less to force them to a majority and instead go with the candidate who received the most votes. Just my two dimes but as I said I know this is a minority opinion.

Punk, your example is a brilliant demonstration of why plurality winning is bad. In your quite plausible example, candidate B would win under plurality system, even though a majority of the electorate prefers candidate A over candidate B. Even under our current system of separate-vote runoffs, candidate B would lose, and rightly so. You are suggesting that in the name of simplicity (not even expediency, since an IRV system would not take any longer than a plurality system), we should weaken the effect of our own preferences on the outcome of an election.

Certainly in the example I used, I was intentionally trying to have the ultimate winner not be the plurality winner.

What I'm saying is this, there are many times I want candidate A and really do not want B, C, or D. My argument is that why not just take the plurality winner when rank-choice voting assumes that voters will have candidates that - and these are my words - they feel at least quasi comfortable should their primary choice candidate not win.

And sure, that might be true in most cases but you are correct that there's no difference with the rank-choice system from an expediency standpoint. Maybe it takes a few minutes longer for the EC to count the runoff votes but that's marginal. My point is that I think the value derived from said system is marginal. Again, I know I'm in the minority on this but did want to share my opinion.

I mean, does it really matter? While we have political parties, in practice the individuals who run just run as independents.

Vapia:

I mean, does it really matter? While we have political parties, in practice the individuals who run just run as independents.

Click to expand...

Regardless of parties, people always have candidates they prefer over another. This is not about ranking political parties, this is about ranking candidates.

punk d:

What about simply allowing the plurality winner to claim victory versus having runoffs at all? Yes, would take some significant change to our laws, but why not?

Runoffs have always seemed quite semantic to me. Forcing a majority winner when the "winner" of said runoffs is still not the 1st choice of a majority.

For example:
Candidate A: 28%
Candidate B: 29%
Candidate C: 23%
Candidate D: 20%

Simply speaking, no one candidate has the support of more than 50% of the voters. Let's say we drop off candidate D and have a runoff or ranked-choice and have the following situation:

Candidate A: 42%
Candidate B: 33%
Candidate C: 25%

Still not at a majority, but a different "winner" has emerged. Ok so we have another runoff or go down the line of our ranked-choice [this all assumes that with rank-choice we force valid ballots to contain a ranking of all candidates]

Candidate A: 51%
Candidate B: 49%

And yay, we have a winner!

To me, I'd rather just have someone win at the onset even if that is a winner who has less than 50% of the voter. I know this is a minority opinion but I feel we overly complicate things at times and if the voters are split amongst candidates I say we do less to force them to a majority and instead go with the candidate who received the most votes. Just my two dimes but as I said I know this is a minority opinion.

Click to expand...

Suppose we had those four candidates, lets call them Alice, Bob, Charlie, and Denise. Alice is a conventional candidate who has served in the Ministries of WA and Foreign Affairs. Bob is very controversial for his promises to end all of our alliances and drop our offsite roleplaying in favor of focusing all regional activity on spam games. Charlie is another conventional candidate who have served in the Ministries of Foreign and WA Affairs. Denise is active on the Regional Message Board and encouraged a bunch of new participants to register as citizens.

If we didn't have ranked choice voting nor tactical voting, people would likely vote:

Bob would win by 1%.

Suppose however we had held a head to head election between Bob and each other candidate, in turn?
(I'm imagining that Bob has built a modestly sized movement around his ideas, but most supporters of the other candidates want nothing to do with them).

Why on earth would it be fair for Bob to win the election with 28% of the vote when an overwhelming majority of the electorate would want, well, anyone but Bob?