Instant-runoff voting can punish voters for prioritizing a 3rd party candidate. IRV does not satisfy the monotonicity criterion. See this article [1] for more information.
In general, IRV is a poor system that is almost as bad as plurality voting in terms of how the outcomes reflect the voters' preferences (plurality voting is what the United States uses for most elections).
There are many systems that are better than IRV or plurality. I like approval voting [2], which is a system where you can vote for any number of candidates (instead of one candidate like plurality). Unlike IRV, you don't rank your choices. Approval voting is very simple (the simplest option other than plurality) and produces good outcomes.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotonicity_criterion [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting
To the reader: approval / score voting has its own problems, such as not satisfying the majority criterion (a bigger deal than monotonicity) and encouraging strategic voting, among other problems.
IRV actually encourages strategic voting, see e.g. http://mattbruenig.com/2014/11/15/instant-runoff-voting-and-.... For a concrete example, if in the USA we had an IRV election between Trump, Clinton, and Sanders in 2016, there are some (not unrealistic) scenarios where it's possible that your (honest) choice to vote 1. Sanders 2. Clinton 3. Trump would cause a Trump victory, whereas a strategic vote of 1. Clinton 2. Sanders 3. Trump would cause a Clinton victory.
You can argue that approval voting also can lead to strategic voting, but at least with approval voting you won't accidentally cause your least favorite candidate to win by voting honestly.
You should look at Condorcet methods, which as a group are conceptually similar to IRV but are more effective at capturing the intent of the electorate. For example, the above scenario can't happen with Condorcet methods. (Again the problem there is that there are actually many of them, and you have to agree on which specific one you want. But all are better than IRV).
IRV isn't the way forward, and it's unclear to me why organizations like FairVote don't endorse another method. (They have an article about it here but the reasoning doesn't really make sense to me. http://www.fairvote.org/why-the-condorcet-criterion-is-less-...)
Bucklin Voting's issue is that it can elect the candidate that is everyone's last choice.
There are ten candidates. Candidate J is least liked by everyone. Nobody else has a majority until the final preference votes are counted. At that time, the entries are tremendously skewed towards Candidate J, and he wins with the clear majority.
That doesn't apply. It is important to filter out voting systems that degenerate into the opposite of their goals. I don't understand why you say that is a mistake. This has nothing to do with a comparison but removing a poor voting system that does not meet the criteria.
At one time, two dozen US cities used STV, and at another time nearly two dozen used Bucklin. And all of them but Cambridge (STV) reverted to Plurality.
So it's just tough, because people are tough.
There's some truth to the statement about IRV. If people are strategic, it essentially degrades to Plurality Voting. http://scorevoting.net/TarrIrv.html
That's not to say that 100% of voters actually are strategic with IRV, but strategic voting appears to have caused IRV to maintain duopoly in countries like Australia—which is pretty undesirable IMO. http://scorevoting.net/AustralianPol.html
Interestingly, polls show that a majority of Australians want to replace STV/IRV with Plurality. http://scorevoting.net/WhatVotersWant
As for these specific criteria, let's be clear from the start that criteria are a very dumb way to assess voting methods, kind of like comparing race cars by comparing horsepower and drag instead of just putting them through timed trials. http://scorevoting.net/PropDiatribe.html
The answer there is Bayesian Regret, which shows Approval Voting performing exceptionally well, and IRV doing worst of the five commonly discussed alternatives. http://scorevoting.net/BayRegsFig.html
Non-monotonicity is an actual problem—it results in a mathematical proof that the voting system has elected the wrong candidate in at least one of two "mirror image" scenarios.
Failing the majority criterion is NOT a problem, in a technical mathematical sense. One of the most elementary facts of social choice theory is that it's possible for a group to prefer X over Y even though a majority of its members prefer Y to X. Mathematical proof here:
http://scorevoting.net/XYvote.html http://scorevoting.net/CondorcetCycles
Though for practical purposes this is all irrelevant, as it would be astronomically unlikely for a majority-preferred candidate to lose with Approval Voting. There is even a theorem that Approval Voting will elect Condorcet winners under rational voter strategy.
With a good voting system, we'd expect/hope to see a competitive race with many candidates, so even having a majority favorite would be the real problem. Without that, the concept of a "majority winner" is nonsensical, yet you still see IRV proponents touting their system's ability to "guarantee a majority winner". I profile the absurdity of this claim here.
https://sites.google.com/a/electology.org/www/utilitarian-ma...
It also makes elections a more accurate reflection of everyone's preferences, instead of just the subset of people who are motivated to vote and able to get to a polling place.
Some people's preference is literally "I don't care"
Other people may have a preference on a specific issue that favors a single candidate while other issues better favor another candidate.
It also reduces actually researching candidates to a waste of time. If I take the time to carefully research 5 candidates and their stance on all of the issues, weigh them carefully, maybe even attend a campaign event to get clarification...and then another guy walks up without having any idea what he's voting for that votes for the other guy...his vote counts exactly the same except that he's only there because he has to be.
I mean, that's democracy. The point isn't a perfect system where everyone is making completely informed decisions. The goal is to keep public officials accountable to the people and their interests, however uninformed.
Diluting the voter pool so much that the people paying enough attention to hold a candidate accountable can't actually have an impact?
I happen to know that Brazil has mandatory voting for most people (it’s optional for 16 and 17 year olds, and for anyone older than 65).
They allow people to vote for nobody, and to vote for “whoever wins.” Since Brazil requires an actual majority vote, voting for “the winner” amounts to “I want to avoid a run-off.”
The main preference this may reveal is a preference to avoid being fined.
EX: Energizing my base while discouraging their base has nothing to do with how you actually change things.
Trump ran some pretty effective campaign adverts just before election designed to drive down voter participation - targeting blacks and replaying that message about superpredators, for instance.
Lack of voter participation also allows politicians to completely screw certain blocs of the population with relative impunity.
It works well enough in Australia.
Mandatory voting produces non-representative votes for people who like any of the candidates, or who can't tell whether a candidate is better by a margin greater than the uncertainty in the preference.
But i'm with you - mandatory voting is a way to get the uninformed to vote, it doesn't force anybody to actually be informed about the issues that their vote affects, and will ultimately lead to more terrible candidates winning elections just because they have the best name recognition.
I don't think mandatory voting infringes on free speech any more than mandatory jury duty does.
Well it shouldn't be called "mandatory voting" if you are permitted to not actually cast a vote.
As an aside, there's a lot of interesting theory behind different voting systems. It's a subset of computer science and involves issues of computational complexity and the like. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_social_choice
You are legally compelled by the government to fill out tax paperwork every year. Being (much more lightly) compelled to fill out a ballot is no different.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compelled_speech
EDIT: IANAL, please do not cite this as any legal justification in a court if you fail to file any form with a government.
If your income is subject to taxation, you can't refuse to fill out the paperwork on the grounds that doing so lends legitimacy to an institution you don't support. The same should be the case for voting.
Mandatory voting would have the same requirements. Anybody who previously could vote now must.
In terms of state power: it's not all that great of an expansion. If you make over the taxable limit, you pay federal taxes. If you own any sort of land, there's a good chance you pay local taxes on it. These sorts of compulsions apply to (equally?) large swathes of the population without necessitating a great deal of state power.
The closest thing to compare compelling people to vote would be the draft.
Like I said above, a mandatory vote does not require individuals to make a political statement any more than taxation does, unless it is coupled with a limited selection of candidates. We can talk about the propriety of a mandatory vote, but the legality of one in the United States seems fairly cut-and-dry.
What you want is to make it easy to vote, and encourage it. Remove registration requirements. Make sure it never takes more than 15 minutes. Make sure it’s easy to know/find/access the polling place. Make elections be on holidays or sundays.
Do you know what ruling supports that? https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment
And this article seems to support the idea that it would be feasible, and specifically talks to the First Amendment issue: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/a-feasi...
You could probably write the law in a way that avoids first amendment implications. For instance, require that people show up at a polling place, but do not require them to submit a ballot.
If write-ins were removed, I'd agree that it violates free speech.
People voted for Harambe.
To me it is definitely a political statement to abstain from voting or abstaining from the political process entirely so its only logical that participating is also a political statement.
The elderly. Sick. Poor. Illiterate. Non-native speakers. Ethnic minorities subject to racist voter ID policies. The list goes on. All of them would be fined for having barriers put upon them.
None of that even covers people who simply can't get time off work, or from watching their kid, or who live in a rural area.
1. Why is mandatory voting needed? Currently, only the people who want to be informed and involved are voters.
To answer your questions about why Felons can't vote: The US doesn't have a national right to vote. In national elections the states vote not the people.
2. There are several methods called Preferential voting, but it sounds like you are describing Bucklin voting. The system, as you describe it, can elect the person who is everyone's last choice, which I presume is the opposite effect from what you want. Were you aware of that?
3. What's wrong with early voting or voting by mail? If you want your vote to count without having to wait in lines, there are already methods available to registered voters.
5. You are arguing both for and against voting. Don't you think that the people should have a say in who their Supervisor of Election is, instead of there being a bunch of unelected, appointed people deciding how elections are run?
Do you really want all Americans voting? Most Americans I talk to don't know much about the different candidates let alone the one they're voting for. We need a better education system then we can have better politicians.
3. Why two days? If you're trying to increase voter turnout why not make it a week?
4. This is really in conflict with all the other points to increase voter turn out. Increasing the number of ways of submitting your vote should be the goal. I would imagine that a huge portion of the population doesn't care about their vote being anonymous or non-verifiable and would take the convenience of voting instantly in the comfort of my own home. I would. Do whatever you need to make it secure, have people to a TSA-precheck style interview if you must. Require a government provided 2FA.
5. Ha, all you've really done is politicize the electoral commission. Doubly so when they also have control of redistricting.
There's a bunch of ways to do it (some more complicated than others), but run an election in larger regions that will elect three candidates. Suddenly nearly everywhere will elect Dems/Repubs in batches of 1-2 or 2-1, and instead of half the country feeling disenfranchised for losing a 49-51% vote, you limit the "wasted" votes to 25%.
And heck, there might even be room in the mix for a 3rd party candidate (independent or centrist) to snag 25% here and there, and start putting chinks in the division caused by the 2-party system.
Sadly not as workable for the Senate or President, but would be fine for Congress.
2. Preferential voting...Of course, none of this
will actually happen.
I'd strongly consider allowing myself to be hauled off to prison for civil disobedience in protest of this one. We need a way to signal our disapproval of the system per se.
* Strict maximum limits on campaign spending
* Ban paid TV advertisements
* Campaigning is limits to 3 months before the general election
Nobody is saying that things would be perfect if more employers made voting day a holiday. But certainly it would be better than what we have now. And we don't need to wait for it to happen. Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good.
Common in many other places is that one of them is strictly by population, in the other each state gets one seat. This ensures the representation of both the small states, and every citizen.
I agree with 2/3/5, 6 is fixed in some instances by having multi-member districts, 4 could be more auditable over time, and 1 is not a great idea.
There is no way for a democracy to make major changes to its election process without "politicizing" it. That's what democracy does; it's how democracy works.
All candidates should be provided a travel and marketing stipend and no personal money or corporate donations should be allowed.
This ensures an even playing field for the average non billionaire candidate.
It makes voting more expensive, and not more representative. What you need to make is voting easier, not forcible. If you could cast your vote online you would see a surge in honest voting.
1) General incompetence at polling places (they're frequently elderly volunteers). Anecdote I worked at a polling place in high school and never got paid for it because the paperwork was lost. What happens when people show up and still get fined?
2) Should Joe Green be able to take off from his job at a fast food register because he neglected to vote in the morning? Will he be able to fund legal action if his manager fires him for doing so?
3) What if Allison Green is disabled and has no method of transportation or means of voting? What if her mail in ballot is lost or never sent?
1. Mandatory voting. I'm talking a small fine if you don't show up to a polling place and get your name checked off;
2. Preferential voting. Vote for the candidates in the order you want. The one with the least primary votes gets eliminated and those votes get distributed to the second preferences. This continues until one candidate has 50.1% of the vote. This way you can vote for a third-party candidate without wasting your vote.
3. Voting over a two day period, probably Saturday and Sunday. This will allow you to use a whole host of government buildings as polling places such as schools that are almost by definition widely geographically distributed;
4. Zero electronic voting. None. Nada. Zilch. More, the standards need to be tightened to have high accuracy voting methods. Optically read ballots where you fill in a circle work wondrously well. Punch cards do not. See the Florida recount of 2000 if you want to see what happens with that;
5. An end to politicizing the election process. It's incredibly dangerous. No more elections for a supervisor of elections or the like. Other countries seem to manage with an electoral commission. The US can too;
6. An end to state governments controlling redistricting. The same electoral commission(s) should handle this.
Of course, none of this will actually happen.
EDIT: several commenters raised three points in particular.
1. Mandatory voting. I come from Australia where we have mandatory voting. By "mandatory" it means you just have to show up to a polling place and get your name ruled out of a large file. It's slightly more tedious if you vote out of your registered district but only slightly.
There's nothing stopping you putting an empty ballot in the box or drawing a picture or just voting invalid. There is no free speech issue here.
I used to be against it until I came to the US to see what havoc voluntary voting wreaks.
The US has a long history of voter suppression because voting isn't mandatory. Getting out the vote is one thing. But the US in parts goes much further than this including:
- Removing your vote if you're convicted of a felony. Why exactly?
- Removing you from the electoral rolls if your name matches that of a felon on the other side of the country;
- Sending mail to your registered address. If it's returned undeliverable, strike you off the rolls;
- Making you wait hours to vote to discourage you from voting, particularly in areas heavily populated with those that might otherwise vote against you (in Australia it never took me more than about 5-10 minutes to vote).
People argue about the evils of having the uninformed vote but if Trump has taught us nothing it's that choosing to vote isn't exactly a recipe for informed voting either.
All of the above are a direct consequence of a politicized electioneering process made possible by non-mandatory voting.
2. Electronic voting. This is a recipe for a foreign power or just a hacker to steal your election by modifying the results in a database rather than interfering with paper ballots that can be audited and recounted.
Sure you can ballot stuff with fake ballots but that's something that requires physical proximity and is far harder to do on the scale that large scale tampering with a database might mean.
Electronic voting is a wholly terrible idea with literally no upside.
3. Mail in ballots. All in favour of it if it's like Oregon where you have the month before the election to send it in. It needs to be easy and flexible.