"Rank-Choice Voting" for California

[Gingerbread Man]

If a candidate had a majority based on the primary vote (that is, with no run-off counts) they would win immediately reguardless.

What this system tries to resolve an issue like this:
40% of people love Bush, and vote him #1
35% of people love Kerry, and vote him #1
25% of people vote a third party as #1

No candidate has complete majority. So the third party is eliminated:
80% of the third party voters wouldn't mind Kerry
20% of the third party voters wouldn't mind Bush.
That makes the votes look like this:
45% Bush
55% Kerry

With the current system, 55% of the voters very much disliked Mr Bush, but because they didn't all vote for the same opponent, they lost out. With 'instant' run-off, the winner is the candidate who is preferred by the most people over the other, hence the 'preferential' system.

In Australia at least, the result of the election is known within 4-5 hours of the polls nationally closing (unless the margin between candidates is < 1%, because people's preferences have to be counted into their 3rd, 4th, or 5th preferences). About half a dozen seats might not be known with certainty for about a week, as is witnessed in the Senate (whose voting system is a shame and horror).

Some people complain about it, but they generally only complain if they didn't get the result they wanted.

 

[Perfection]

Lets say there are 100 candidates. Kerry, Bush, and 98 others. 51% of people think Bush is best which Kerry is second; the other 98 are 3rd through 100th. 49%, the rest, think Kerry should be first but Bush last; the 2nd through 99th are the other candidates. Should Bush win just because 51% think he is best? 100% think Kerry is best or second best. Kerry's average would be much higher than Bush's so it would seem that he should win. This method, though poorly implemented, tries to fix that.

No this method does not try to fix that, with instant runoff if there is no canidates with a 50% majority it allows those voters who voted on the other candidates to effectively change thier vote to the leading canidates thus reducing problems with a third party challanger. This ensures that majority does rule.

Your objection I do not feel to be a problem, the reason being with a system that acknowledges lower ranked mediocre canidates who do not take stands on issues, if in a highly polarized election among two strong opponants, both sides rank a indecisive third party nobody above thier opponent he would have more 1st and second votes votes then both but I don't feel he should win the election.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

I really really like this. As the free software developers say, first-past-the-post is a poor system. At last we solve the problem of people "fractioning" and one side winning because the other side is offering a varied selection of candidates.

It would get clunky past about 10 people, of course, but it's a better system than what we have.

 

[slothman]

I came up with those values to state not a method that would make Bush lose this way but a sat of values that mound seem to make people in general like Kerry better than Bush. Kerry's average is higher even though the plurity method and this way would let Bush win.
I still like approval best since it is easy to implement and easy to mind the answer as well. It does seem that with my values Kerry should win even though many voting methods would make Bush win. With approval only a 3% of total that vote Bush would need to approval Kerry to make him win.

 

[Perfection]

I came up with those values to state not a method that would make Bush lose this way but a sat of values that mound seem to make people in general like Kerry better than Bush. Kerry's average is higher even though the plurity method and this way would let Bush win.
I still like approval best since it is easy to implement and easy to mind the answer as well. It does seem that with my values Kerry should win even though many voting methods would make Bush win. With approval only a 3% of total that vote Bush would need to approval Kerry to make him win.

I don't like your idea. Let's say we have Limbaugh Bush and Kerry running:

The conservatives are 49% of the population and they all vote Bush Limbaugh Kerry

The Liberals are 51% of the population and they all vote Kerry Bush Limbaugh

If just Kerry and Bush ran the result would be a Kerry Victory but just because Limbaugh ran it shifts the victory to Bush, this is not right.
When it comes to an election, if 51% want some guy they should get it.

And you say it's easy to implement, please give us a set of rules so we can precisely understand how your system works.

 

[ainwood]

for non-australians: you can either mark one box "above the line" to say that you'd like all your preferences to go along the same line as your preferred party, or mark all the boxes (60-70 or more) below the line, in order of preference.

And am I right in my uinderstanding that if someone fails to rank all 60-70 boxes correctly (eg they put two #43's), then the entire vote form is declared 'invalid'?

Ranked voting has its place, but in a litigious country like the US, I think this will cause a lot of problems.

As Nobody mentioned, ranked voting was used in NZ for local-body elections. I believe something like 13% of all votes cast were ruled invalid because the rankings hadn't been done properly, and in our system you only needed to rank as many as you wanted to! I'm not sure what the proposal in California is, but if not made ridiculously simple, you will cause a lot of problems.

 

[bobgote]

And am I right in my uinderstanding that if someone fails to rank all 60-70 boxes correctly (eg they put two #43's), then the entire vote form is declared 'invalid'?

that's right. yet another reason not to try.

 

[GerrardCapashen]

You could always just list your first choice, followed by a candidate who stands a good shot at winning.

Really there is no reason to have people rank more than three candidates, after that it becomes meaningless.

 

[Boleslav]

I've had experience with this system and it does work.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

I don't like your idea. Let's say we have Limbaugh Bush and Kerry running:

The conservatives are 49% of the population and they all vote Bush Limbaugh Kerry

The Liberals are 51% of the population and they all vote Kerry Bush Limbaugh

If just Kerry and Bush ran the result would be a Kerry Victory but just because Limbaugh ran it shifts the victory to Bush, this is not right.
When it comes to an election, if 51% want some guy they should get it.

And you say it's easy to implement, please give us a set of rules so we can precisely understand how your system works.

If somebody has a majority, they win. End of case. Read Gingerbread Man's post a little way up.

 

[slothman]

I don't like your idea. Let's say we have Limbaugh Bush and Kerry running:

The conservatives are 49% of the population and they all vote Bush Limbaugh Kerry

The Liberals are 51% of the population and they all vote Kerry Bush Limbaugh

If just Kerry and Bush ran the result would be a Kerry Victory but just because Limbaugh ran it shifts the victory to Bush, this is not right.
When it comes to an election, if 51% want some guy they should get it.

And you say it's easy to implement, please give us a set of rules so we can precisely understand how your system works.

Let's give a more specific example. 51% of people give Kerry a 10, Bush a 2 and Limbaugh a 1. 49% give Bush a 10, Limbaugh a 9, and Kerry a 1.

     K , B , L
51%= 10  1   1
49%= 1  10   9

K=51*10+1*49=559
B=1*51+49*10=541
L=51*1+49*9=492

In other words assuming Limbaugh is rated the same or worse than Bush he would not affect the outcome or win. Without him the values would be the same.
Since Kerry is highest then he would win. Of course this means a rank wouldn't be enough. A rating would be required which I was really thinking but didn't say. D'OH.
The idea you posted, IRV, is bad anyway for that reason. It is non-monotonous meaning a candidate could lose by being ranked higher. The problem about saying that if 51% of the people vote for some guy, he's still better than Kerry of Bush, he should win isn't quite true. If 100 candidates the get about the same number of votes are there 1 "random" one will win. If one drops out his votes might, though not through IRV [shudder="IRV" /], go to somone else who wouldn't win before. Plus if the slightly higher person is more hated but the slightly lower person is not then why shouldn't he win?
P.S. how do I do the "code" tag to align it with a fixed font but without having the word code appear?

 

[IglooDame]

In the Bush/Limbaugh/Kerry example, it would merely turn out to be the same as the present system. If more than 50% truly feel that a particular candidate best represents them, that candidate should win. The problem right now is that they're usually voting for one of the two major candidates that best represent them, and if Rank-Choice voting helps reduce or eliminate strategic voting, I'm all for it.

 

[Cashie]

@Cashie: do you think the senate one is a waste though? less than 3% of people vote below the line, which makes an independant getting in even less likely.

It is difficult for an independant to get a spot as an independant, with the possible exception of Tasmania, where only a very limited field run. In all other states we get all manner of parties running (the Fishing Party, Free Beer on Tuesdays, Democrats, Libertarian-Independants, etc. etc) so it's hard for any of the minor people to get up.

Its worthwhile to have a look at how the Senate results are calculated they can be found on the ABC's Election site. But if you want to be confused by a preferential/ranking system, this is where to go. A worthwhile note is the Family First party snagging the the 6th Senate spot in Tassie due to preferences, despite the Greens having .9 of a quota on the primary vote.

Saying its a waste is a bit harsh, it has its merits. I sometimes vote below the line (the first time I did so, was so I could personally put David Oldfield last). This time I voted above to strengthen the preferencing power of the Greens next time around (i'm an unnoficial supporter + my housemates are members) - since roughly 50% of Green voters vote below the line (not all that effective in snagging deals that way).

The fact is that most people are lazy and will take the easiest option, which often means not thinking outside the major parties. Hence the Liberal dominance we have at the moment.

 

[slothman]

In the Bush/Limbaugh/Kerry example, it would merely turn out to be the same as the present system. If more than 50% truly feel that a particular candidate best represents them, that candidate should win. The problem right now is that they're usually voting for one of the two major candidates that best represent them, and if Rank-Choice voting helps reduce or eliminate strategic voting, I'm all for it.

It could be like that but my example wasn't very true, not because 51% may not vote for Kerry, though that is probably true, but because in real America less than 50% would be both Bush and Kerry.
If both the 2 top people are like 45% +- 1% then the second choice should also matter. Plus people don't always vote according to views, especially with this system. Plus this system will help get rid of the totalitarianism duopoly that prevents more than 2 parties. Many people would say, if polled, that they don't want more than 2 parties but I would say that is from "party pressure," the fact that people tend to liek more party things than they first did. If you take that away and creat parties that match people more, more than 2 would be required. I don't even see any that match me very well. I'd have to take many parts from at least the 5 "big" ones.
As I said, If 51% of people like Bush more than they like anyone else, voting wise at least, which may not match true preference, but the other 49% hate him, and only 49% like Kerry fot the same reason but the other 51% don't hate him, would Bush or Kerry be better? I would say Kerry since he is generally liked but not disliked.