ITHACA, N.Y. — A group of local residents are trying to change how elections are decided in the city of Ithaca. Tom Clavel and Patrick Sewell, two leaders of the […]
RCV has the momentum and is infinitely superior to what we have now. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of much better.
Edit: And honestly, I’d be happy if a community chose one of the other options. I don’t care. They’re all better than what we have and we should be applauding every city, county and state that switches to any of them.
Trying to demonize one because you don’t think it’s perfect is just muddying the waters and subjecting us to decades of more of the shit sandwich we have now while we debate which alternative is flawless.
We had the same arguments in the U.K. during the referendum to drop FPTP. Strangely, the people making those arguments on Reddit all disappeared the day after the vote. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I am convinced that was Russia!s proof-of-concept for what would become their information warfare against democracy.
OP, you are most likely genuine and good meaning, but understand that Russia, China, and many other bad actors want you to keep FPTP because it’s so much easier for them to manipulate elections. Any argument against change, even if said change is not perfect, is in their favour.
Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I am convinced that was Russia!s proof-of-concept for what would become their information warfare against democracy.
I find myself increasingly having to consider this possibility when I interact with people online. Are they well meaning, or are they actively trying to sabotage progress. Maybe they’re well meaning but have succumbed to the arguments of others actively trying to sabotage progress. 🤷
Voter dissatisfaction with RCV can poison public opinion of ballot reform. Ideally it’d be a stepping stone to better non-FPTP methods - but a lot of right-wing cranks have campaigned to ban ranked ballots, based on complications in how RCV does kinda suck. It’s a misuse of a multi-winner system. It fundamentally does not pick the best candidate. It picks the first candidate who can scrounge together 50%. Someone could be literally everyone’s second choice and they would be eliminated first.
… it’s a concise illustration of the core problem.
RCV only cares about top votes - it can easily eliminate compromise candidates, just because they’re less popular as a first choice. Consider the following much-more-plausible election:
40% want A > B > C.
35% want C > B > A.
25% want B > C > A.
FPTP says A wins with a plurality of 40%, because FPTP sucks.
RCV says B is eliminated and C beats A. Even though everyone who wanted A > C would prefer B. And if A beat C, everyone who wanted C > A would also have preferred B.
Ranked Pairs says A vs B is 40-60 for B, A vs C is 75-25 for C, and B vs C is 65-35 for B. The Condorcet winner is B. Why should it be anyone else?
RCV has the momentum and is infinitely superior to what we have now. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of much better.
Edit: And honestly, I’d be happy if a community chose one of the other options. I don’t care. They’re all better than what we have and we should be applauding every city, county and state that switches to any of them.
Trying to demonize one because you don’t think it’s perfect is just muddying the waters and subjecting us to decades of more of the shit sandwich we have now while we debate which alternative is flawless.
We had the same arguments in the U.K. during the referendum to drop FPTP. Strangely, the people making those arguments on Reddit all disappeared the day after the vote. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I am convinced that was Russia!s proof-of-concept for what would become their information warfare against democracy.
OP, you are most likely genuine and good meaning, but understand that Russia, China, and many other bad actors want you to keep FPTP because it’s so much easier for them to manipulate elections. Any argument against change, even if said change is not perfect, is in their favour.
I find myself increasingly having to consider this possibility when I interact with people online. Are they well meaning, or are they actively trying to sabotage progress. Maybe they’re well meaning but have succumbed to the arguments of others actively trying to sabotage progress. 🤷
I’m more and more concerned that everyone on the Internet is a bit or a trolly edge lord trying to get a rise.
Voter dissatisfaction with RCV can poison public opinion of ballot reform. Ideally it’d be a stepping stone to better non-FPTP methods - but a lot of right-wing cranks have campaigned to ban ranked ballots, based on complications in how RCV does kinda suck. It’s a misuse of a multi-winner system. It fundamentally does not pick the best candidate. It picks the first candidate who can scrounge together 50%. Someone could be literally everyone’s second choice and they would be eliminated first.
That’s such an absurd manufactured edge case as to not be worth considering.
… it’s a concise illustration of the core problem.
RCV only cares about top votes - it can easily eliminate compromise candidates, just because they’re less popular as a first choice. Consider the following much-more-plausible election:
40% want A > B > C.
35% want C > B > A.
25% want B > C > A.
FPTP says A wins with a plurality of 40%, because FPTP sucks.
RCV says B is eliminated and C beats A. Even though everyone who wanted A > C would prefer B. And if A beat C, everyone who wanted C > A would also have preferred B.
Ranked Pairs says A vs B is 40-60 for B, A vs C is 75-25 for C, and B vs C is 65-35 for B. The Condorcet winner is B. Why should it be anyone else?