News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Alameda County admits tallying error in ranked choice voting, flips one result. Parent comment

Re:Alameda County admits tallying error in ranked choice vot... by DonHopkins on Saturday December 31, 2022 @04:29PM (#34200977)
Even though it may be mathematically equivalent, I think the psychological appeal is important to motivate people to vote at all, if not think clearly about how they vote, and do it honestly and wisely.

Human factors are important -- remember the Butterfly Ballots of the 2000 elections!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidentia...

I think that 0 being "don't care" and negative numbers being negative percentages is easier to grasp and more balanced and granular than (3) being neutral. Even -3 to 3 would be better than 1 to 7.

Voting "A: -100%, B: -100%, C: -100%" weights each candidate the same as "A: 0%, B: 0%, C: 0%" the same as "A: 100%, B: 100%, C: 100%", but as you said, it's useful to get an overall count of the voters' absolute satisfaction with each candidate.

A popular positively winning candidate would have a more legitimate claim to a mandate, and the lesser of two evils candidates would be branded as such.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Alameda County admits tallying error in ranked choice vot... by godelski on Saturday December 31, 2022 @04:45PM (#34201090)
> Even though it may be mathematically equivalent, I think the psychological appeal is important to motivate people to vote at all, if not think clearly about how they vote, and do it honestly and wisely.

I agree with you here, maybe I did not articulate my previous comment correctly to reflect this.

[ Parent | on HN ]