News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Maine Ranked Choice Voting Initiative Approved. Parent comment

Re:Maine Ranked Choice Voting Initiative Approved by specialist on Monday November 14, 2016 @07:49PM (#12954734)
Pierce County tried it. They quickly undid it.

IRV confused the voters. The election administrators were dead set against it, so were only too happy to allow it to fail.

Aside, on the election integrity front, IRV is difficult to tabulate and necessitates digital tabulation. I initially supported IRV, so many years ago, but its inherit complexity finally turned me off.

I now support Approval Voting. More fair than IRV, trivial to tabulate, easy to explain.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Maine Ranked Choice Voting Initiative Approved by BenElgar on Monday November 14, 2016 @08:32PM (#12954901)
In my mind, the problem with Approval Voting is that it's harder to decide how one should vote. What's the cut-off? Do I vote for everyone I really believe in? Or everyone I don't loathe? And it's exactly that sort of question which leads to tactical voting. With IRV it's easy. Just order them until you're indifferent to the rest of the candidates.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Maine Ranked Choice Voting Initiative Approved by ClayShentrup on Tuesday November 15, 2016 @02:17AM (#12956242)
Wrong.

http://scorevoting.net/RVstrat6.html

http://scorevoting.net/TarrIrv.html

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Maine Ranked Choice Voting Initiative Approved by nitrogen on Tuesday November 15, 2016 @01:56AM (#12956163)
It seems to me that AV should lead to basically the same results regardless of people's individual cutoffs. I think it's more important to avoid the nonmonotonicity of IRV.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Maine Ranked Choice Voting Initiative Approved by caf on Monday November 14, 2016 @09:38PM (#12955188)
IRV scrutiny has been successfully done by hand-counting for many decades before computer-assisted counting was available.
[ Parent | on HN ]