chaogomu @ chaogomu @kbin.social

Posts

1

Comments

978

Joined

2 yr. ago

Ranked Choice is actually (much) worse overall than the modified Score that OP is describing, even with bullet voting.

As a note, Ranked Choice still has bullet voting. About 30% of voters in a ranked choice election bullet vote.

This video goes into a deep dive about Ranked Choice (and some other systems) and talks about how Ranked Choice might actually be worse than simple plurality. (which is already pretty bad)

A slight misconception in your comment, what OP is describing is much closer to a slightly limited version of Score. Or possibly an expanded Approval.

It's nothing like Ranked Choice.

To break things down, Ranked Choice is an Ordinal voting system. You rank candidates A then B then C.

The actual mechanics of the election are a series of First Past the Post elections all on a single ballot.

To contrast, Approval and Score are both Cardinal voting systems. You express preference for A, but that doesn't mean anything about your preference for B. The votes per candidate are counted independently of the votes for any other candidate. This means that Cardinal voting systems are 100% immune to the spoiler effect. They're also almost completely immune to clone candidates and other such attacks.

Ordinal systems will always fall victim to the spoiler effect, although the more complex ordinal voting systems like Ranked Choice mitigate it somewhat (while making things so much worse when it does crop up)

I'm against the dumping of garbage into the Mariana Trench, there are perfectly find landfills here in the US that he could live in.

I'm sure someone in Alabama will donate a lightly used meth trailer for him to live in.

The thing is, we already know how this goes, because Argentina has had right-wing fanatics in charge before.

The economy is done. That's how it goes. Everyone except the super rich will be reintroduced to extreme poverty, and anyone who leans even slightly left-wing will have to fear for their lives.

They never seem to do that. It's always a fine that would be ruinous for most, but a slap on the wrist for the people actually committing the crimes.

Often the excuse isn't even "bad guys behind the civilians" it's "probably bad guys somewhere sort of in the general area, but we didn't actually check first".

Oh yeah, then there's the "old lady trying to drag her dying mother into a church" those are always valid targets, apparently. As is the old lady's mother before the whole being drug into a church thing.

I remember playing it a bit back in 2001.

And yes, it's still around.

There are even two versions that Jagex maintains, the main branch, and Old School Runescape, which is based around how the game was back in 2007-2009. (but with new stuff still added all the time)

True. That is a good thing.

Heinz is particularly bad, they use soy sauce and corn syrup, and I don't think ferment it at all.

Whereas Lea & Perrins use zero soy, and ferment the sauce.

The absolute worst part about it all is that Lea & Perrins was bought out by Heinz in 2005, and yet the Heinz branded sauce is still shit flavored water.

The original is still made the same way, and is still good.

I'll piggyback on your comment with Worcestershire sauce.

Lea & Perrins make the original Worcestershire sauce, they also have never disclosed the full recipe, just the ingredients.

There are store brands and even Heinz makes a sauce. None of them are as good as the original.

So nowhere in the article is it mentioned that the supposed "Texas right to secede" is actually bullshit, and a complete misunderstanding of the actual right that they have, which is to be broken up into five separate states.

Except even that is bullshit, because it was talking about the Texas Territory, which was larger than modern day Texas.

The constitution clearly says that;

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

So yes, Texas could request to be broken up, but congress still needs to okay it.

Now, as to the "right to secede", that bullshit was settled with the Civil War, States do not have the right to secede, not even Texas.

Republicans like to pretend the Civil War never happened, and want a repeat, I guess.

To be fair, Napoleon didn't actually start any of his wars, it was the European nobility launching wars to reinstate the French Monarchy.

It depends on the island. Napoleon died on a remote island. It took a few tries though.

A quick search of those golf pictures says that he might just be that fat.

Okay, first, the security issues of RCV are well known, but often denied. The votes must be counted in a centralized location. They cannot be tallied at the polling locations. This means you must transport the ballots. RCV is the only voting system that requires the ballots to be transported (or scanned and transmitted) This introduces numerous security issues that do not exist in other voting systems, not even in plurality.

Take the 2021 NYC mayoral election, where there were 100K extra votes. This was due to a screwup in mixing test ballots with real ballots, which was a screw-up in how the test ballots were made. Nevertheless, the way it was caught was the winning candidate looked at the polling numbers and spotted a discrepancy. He was still the winner afterward.

An actual malicious actor could easily steal an election, and no one would know it happened.

That alone is terrifying.

As to Arrow's Impossibility Theorem, that only applies to Ranked, i.e. Ordinal, voting systems. STAR is a Cardinal voting system and is largely immune to Arrow's Theorem.

And again, the lie about the spoiler effect. RCV still has the spoiler effect, and it's even worse for enforcing a two party dominance than FPtP.

The main thing to understand is that RCV/IRV whatever you call it, is still a series of FPtP elections on a single ballot.

You cannot fix the problems of plurality by iterating plurality.

It does not, in fact, break the two party system. Full stop.

RCV still has the spoiler effect, and is in fact worse for third parties.

If the third party is small, then RCV will sideline them harder than FPtP, if they get big enough to matter, then RCV will break and the worst candidate will be elected.

See any RCV election with three or more viable candidates, but particularly Burlington 2009.

So RCV fails to do the one thing that people say it's good for. It does not break the two party system. Something we've known for a long time, seeming as how it's used in one category of Australian elections, and that particular category is dominated by two parties. (other areas of Australian politics use proportional elections, but one section of their government is single winner RCV)

RCV is literally a bad system. See my other comments about it.

But it has things like the spoiler effect, monotonicity issues, security issues, and more.

It's a bad system, that's already failed multiple times in real world election, and people are still pushing for it to have wider implementation.

STAR is great, but I can also talk about Approval. That one is dead simple.

The ballot is the same as a FPtP ballot except instead of it saying "mark one" it says something like "mark one or more".

Approval says vote for as many people as you want, and if any of them win, you'll be happy. Or not. I'm not the boss of you.

As to "forcing you to rank candidates" that's hogwash.

Forcing people to use a bad system because you think they aren't smart enough to rate someone on a scale of 0-5 is kind of mind-boggling.

Ranked Choice is very attractive to people who don't realize that it marginalizes third parties even more than a simple plurality election.

Here's the thing, if your third party is small and has no chance of actually winning, then Ranked Choice will keep them from ruining the election for the two major parties.

The thing is, the second that third party becomes even slightly more popular than the major party closest to them on the spectrum, the candidate furthest from them on the spectrum wins.

See, if A B and C are in an election where A has 40%, B has 29% and C (the new third party) has 31%. When B is eliminated, it doesn't matter that Every single C voter put B as their second, because B is gone.

All it takes is for a third of B voters (10% of the total) to put A first for A to win. This is the absolute worst outcome for C voters, and if just a handful had voted dishonestly for B first, B would have won.

This is a high bar to hit when there are only three candidates, but when there are five? Well, the numbers get worse. More than that, and RCV just starts breaking in new and interesting ways.

Ranked Choice is a broken system pretending to be a viable one. In my top comment, I pointed to a bunch of real world examples of it breaking down in ways that no other voting system is subject to.

You don't need a clean territorial split for a civil war. You just need clean lines of separation between different groups. There have been civil wars based on ethnic lines, religious lines, and even ideologies.

The wars without clear territory get messy. Like genocide messy.