Approval voting is the key to ending the two-party system. Balance ceases to exist in the binary politics of a two-party system. Having many political parties brings balance to a democracy. Voting for any number of candidates means that one can support a third party without sacrificing support for a first or second party. Also, a party can put all their candidates on the ballot without diluting the vote for any particular candidate. Primaries become unnecessary-your favored candidate doesn’t have to be eliminated from the ballot because a different candidate won a party nomination. Democracy needs approval voting.

@elijahcriswell1658

3 жыл бұрын

opinions on approval voting vs ranked choice/instant runoff?

@Eudaletism

2 жыл бұрын

@@elijahcriswell1658 Ranked Choice has weird "artifacts" and paradoxical behavior near edge cases. Approval voting is more likely to give the candidate that maximizes net voter satisfaction, and easier to switch to, since it works with the existing machines and ballots. However, both are far better than FPTP, and either would be an improvement.

This could break two party systems like that of the US but this is exactly why such a voting system will never be approved, both parties know it would be a disadvantage for them.

@ClayShentrup

2 жыл бұрын

Approval voting was passed by a 64% landslide in Fargo and a 68% landslide in St Louis, and there's currently a campaign to bring it to Seattle, which will almost certainly pass.

@everettduncan7543

Жыл бұрын

@@ClayShentrup north Dakota's legislature is trying to ban approval voting

Does anyone have a more in-depth video on why specifically Approval Voting is better than Instant Runoff Voting, Ranked Voting, Score Voting, Single-Transferrable Vote, STAR Voting, etc?

@ClayShentrup

4 жыл бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/eq12z8GBk9iadKw.html STAR voting is technically a bit better but approval voting is almost as good and simpler.

Approval would be a vast improvement. The video makes the points well. A majority remains a majoritly, even if there are several similar candidates whom they all prefer to the others. No split vote problem. With Approval, no more need to "pragmatically" abandon one's favorite, to vote for a "lesser-evil". Can you imagine what a different country it would be, if everyone felt free to actually support their favorite, to express what they actually want? A government liked/approved by the most.

_CGP Grey wants to know your location_

@GTA5Player1

4 жыл бұрын

Who?

Interesting that a 2013 year old ad is running in 2017. Coincidence? Maybe.

@filthynice88

5 жыл бұрын

Dec 2018 ..still popping into midrolls...and this acct of mine focuses on gaming...so like wtf?

@filthynice88

3 жыл бұрын

@@IlIlllIllIlIIIll sigh... If my ad preferences included politics then sure I'd accept it.... But it doesn't.... Singular, because my only ad preference is gaming ...

Could be an improvement over ranked choice voting, another suggested solution. Wonder if it is.

@ClayShentrup

4 жыл бұрын

Yes it is.

@GTA5Player1

4 жыл бұрын

Not really. There's still some strategic voting. Ranked choice voting avoids that even more.

@YamadaDesigns

4 жыл бұрын

Yup, approval voting is much better than RCV. It doesn’t fail the monotonicity criteria (aka favorite betrayal)

@GTA5Player1

4 жыл бұрын

@@YamadaDesigns Yet it doesn't prevent strategic voting.

@GTA5Player1

3 жыл бұрын

@@IlIlllIllIlIIIll I like A way more than B and C, but I still prefer B to C. Your system doesn't let me express that. So I will vote strategically for A. Not really a minimal penalty, if the gap between B and A is large.

Approval Voting is the correct generalization of the two-valued cardinal ballot to a race with more than two candidates. (A "cardinal" ballot is one where you assign a number to each candidate separately, as opposed to an "ordinal" ballot where you rank them. A two-valued cardinal ballot is the kind we're all used to.) Here's why. We normally score ballots using a {1, 0} system: we add 1 to a candidate's total when a ballot checks that candidate's box, and 0 when it doesn't. Imagine for a moment that instead we used a {1, -1} system: when a ballot doesn't check a candidate's box, we subtract 1 from their total. Clearly, the two systems produce the same winner; the new system's total for a candidate is related to the old system's total by the linear function f(x) = 2x - b, where b is the number of ballots, and linear functions with positive slopes (2 is the slope here) don't change the relative ordering of their inputs. So the two systems are equivalent. We tend to think of checking a box as a vote, and not checking it as a non-vote, as the absence of a vote. But it's clear from the above that in a two-valued system, there's no such thing as a non-vote: every vote either increases the candidate's chances, or decreases them. If we wanted to allow voters the choice of abstaining on a particular candidate, we could go to a three-valued system, adding a 0 choice to {1, -1} to get {1, 0, -1}; but a two-valued ballot doesn't offer that choice. So in a two-valued system, there's no such thing as "one person, one vote"; even in a two-candidate race, every valid ballot has two votes, one "for" and one "against". The correct slogan is "one person, one candidate, one vote". In a two-candidate race this point doesn't matter, but with more candidates it does. The rule we've generally followed says that given N candidates, you must cast one positive vote and N-1 negative votes. Now the pointlessness of that rule becomes evident: you're still casting N votes. We could simply remove the rule, allowing you to cast as many positive and negative votes as you choose, and you would still be casting N votes; your ballot would still have the same amount of influence over the result. Only if we allowed abstentions could you cast a ballot with less influence, and that of course would be your free choice. So the only thing we have to do to get to Approval Voting is to remove a rule that is now seen to be pointless and unnatural.

The world needs more Approval Voting! Great job by Electology to get this important message out there!

After a quick search, I'm not seeing it, but is there a voting system that combines the advantages of approval voting while still enabling voters to express a preference in a way that can be impactful? I might "approve" of a candidate that I find... ok... but _really_ have a strong preference for another candidate. Ignoring this psychological desire to have preference matter is probably why approval voting isn't more popular. So what method might be able to capture in a meaningful way an expressed set of preferences and also which set of candidates are acceptable to balance that psychological desire with a generally positive outcome?

@YamadaDesigns

4 жыл бұрын

Brett Lemoine sounds like you’re talking about STAR Voting although I still like approval better since it’s so simple and still gets you a consensus candidate.

Great stuff. Enjoyed the 'spoiled' pun that is built in. Also love the animation of the center for election science logo.

Can you explain approval voting for multiple parties with a set amount of seats? (With/without minimum seat requirements) Say, 40 parties (of which, 13 have a realistic chance), 6 million voters, 120 seats(, 3.25% minimum blocker).

Your example makes sense- strategic voters would utilize the approval ballot if they prioritize a likely outcome rather than a candidate. I'd be more interested in how voters behave in a close race though. It seems like even a minor gap in approval between two like-minded candidates is a death sentence for the one trailing, due to that candidate's inability to get voters to prioritize the election of their favorite over the non-election of their least favorite.

why the hell did I get this as an ad lol

I think in my country the way they get around this is by giving influence to second, third, fourth and fifth place too. If they are able to work together that is. Otherwise they look at sixth and seventh to fill up the spots. It works kind of like that I believe. So the parties that got less support aren't just discarded. Our system might still benefit from this approach though.

If I ever see this as an ad on one of the videos I watch ever again I'll kick your ass

Or rather, I see how the spoiler effect is no longer caused by the ballot itself, but if the candidates themselves are forced to manufacture a spoiler effect in order to go beyond building a competitive constituency, then doesn't that foster more resentment? "Hate the game, not the player" comes to mind.

Doesn’t Ranked Choice Voting also remove the spoiler effect? This video doesn’t really tell us why Approval is better.

@hannahsanson4243

4 жыл бұрын

Adam Kelly No kzread.info/dash/bejne/fKh_o7Wcf7XLprQ.html

"IRV is extremely susceptible to tactical exaggeration, which causes it to degenerate approximately into ordinary Plurality Voting. (IRV proponents often make this very criticism of Approval Voting, but they are mistaken.)" How so?

We keep coming back to Nader as an example for a reason- it's an example of the spoiler effect spoiling. But the spoiler effect gives minor parties leverage. The spoiler effect is evident whenever it happens. We're allowed to confidently assert that Gore would've won in 2000 without a spoiler effect, but under approval voting, you won't hear anyone say that so-and-so third party would've won WITH a spoiler effect. We won't know it when it happens.

@macrumpton

3 жыл бұрын

Gore would have won without the FL sec of state stealing the election by stopping the recount.

Ok but that assumes I want both of my choices to win equally, when I actually want one of them to win over the other.

That and the "Familiar Ballot" section, and the last three that say IRV users will vote tactically. The other sections are actually more like "IRV is too hard".

I approve.

Ranked Choice Voting seems to be a bit better. Where does the Approval Party sit on the topic of Ranked Choice Voting? Why not adopt the superior methodology?

@DrudgeRock

11 ай бұрын

What makes it better? Approval seems to beat it in every way.

In that case, how is a non-ranked system better than a ranked one? Just because it's simpler?

@phmfthacim

5 жыл бұрын

It lets voters express an even openness to two or more choices. Ranked systems force voters to order their choices even if they wouldn't want to. Forcing voters to rank their choices filters out useful information that could otherwise be used toward refining the outcome of the election.

I know people that write in Ralph Nader or mickey mouse every election. Mind blowing huh.

I did, and none of them explained it using any sort of logic or realistic example. For example, under AV, why would I vote for candidate A and B if I really want A to win? Why would I want to help B defeat A? I want my votet to go to B only if A doesn't win. If enough people do this candidate B could lose to A even if he had support from voters of A and C (let's say B is a centrist). Or, candidate C could win because the vote between A and B split anyway. Over time, AV would become tactical.

@JayQuigleyPlayQuickly

4 жыл бұрын

Any voting system is subject to tactical voting; the question is how to make tactical voting least harmful. The answer to your last remark is that if voters really approve of only one candidate, then they should vote for that one. But if they have multiple preferences, then approval voting allows them to express those preferences. What about your In your example? I'll assume that you know that A is polling in third place, that B and C are polling closely in the top two, and that your preference ranking is A > B > C, and that A and B are close to each other ideologically. In that case, then if you would really prefer a B victory over a C victory, and B and C are polling close enough, then you need to vote on B as a compromise candidate. If A has about as good a shot as defeating C as B does, however, then you may want to vote only for A. In approval voting, voting for a losing candidate is not fully a loss. Your preferences get reflected in the final vote count, and it provides a way to see which packages of ideas have the most support across the population-like an opinion poll. Over time, this provides a way for whoever wins to be incentivized to take the policy stances that people tend to vote for. More about your objection: www.electionscience.org/library/bullet-voting/

@GTA5Player1

4 жыл бұрын

@@JayQuigleyPlayQuickly But how is that better than ranked choice voting? There I just rank my choices, and don't have to worry helping B defeat A.

@_z3r0

3 жыл бұрын

@@GTA5Player1 it's simpler and doesn't violate the monotonicity criterion: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotonicity_criterion

@GTA5Player1

3 жыл бұрын

@@_z3r0 And it also doesn't address tactical voting.

This video along with your website www.electology.org/#!approval-voting/cc04 inspired my undergraduate course presentation "Duverger's Law and the Way to Break it." Great job. Regards from China

@alexanderchenf1

9 жыл бұрын

Clay Shentrup Welcome to China. We can together investigate China's electoral system, and the possibility of approval voting in it.

@TheCenterforElectionScience

7 жыл бұрын

Awesome to hear!

@eyescreamcake

7 жыл бұрын

Fargo, ND wants to try approval voting for city commissioners.

But how does peach lose?

@TheCenterforElectionScience

3 жыл бұрын

Peach has less support than Blueberry

This is imo alot better than only allowing one vote. But it doesn't allow me to voice my preference in candidates (it does not allow me to rank candidates I'm voting for), nor does it require the winner to get the majority (50% +1) of votes. I'm not trying to dog this system since I think its much better than what we have and does all the things the video says. I also find it simple to explain. But again, candidates can win with less than 50% of the vote. Under this system I could still win with 35% of the approval vote. I'm also concerned, compared to ranked choice voting, that there would still be alot of negative campaigning. I imagine candidates would be much less likely to say sure, vote for my competitor and me both equally under approval voting, versus vote for my competitor #2 and me as #1 under ranked choice voting. I also prefer ranked choice voting since it's already being run statewide in Maine, with Alaska beginning its use statewide in 2022. And New York City uses it in their primaries now, its first use in 2021, with overwhelming positive support. There's many other cities that use it too. And ranked choice voting has been used for decades I believe for those serving overseas in our military and diplomatic institutions. (And again I support approval voting over what we mostly have now in the US which incentivizes voting for the least bad option since you don't want to waste your vote on someone you like more but has little chance of winning.)

@supersupersomething

2 жыл бұрын

TLDR: I prefer ranked choice since it allows me to voice my genuine preference, it requires 50% +1 majority support, and I believe it does more than approval voting to encourage positive solutions based campaigns.

This is great!

Just take it a step further and do score voting. That’s basically the same, except it allows voters to express their support of candidates more accurately than just “approve” or “don’t approve”.

@markmidgley416

3 жыл бұрын

How about Score-Than-Automatic-Runoff, STAR Voting? kzread.info/dash/bejne/ZWGhsceOiKTRhpM.html

@5pp000

2 жыл бұрын

Score voting can be useful when there are only 10 or so voters, but once you get to thousands of voters the additional choices become less important. If many voters are ambivalent about a candidate, then with approval, roughly half of them will vote for that person and half against; the result will be the same as if score voting had been used and they had all given that person a middle score. Even though the individual AV ballot is less expressive, with enough voters, you still get a good summary of the opinions of the electorate.

Just in the matter of removing the spoiler effect, this gets my approval. Will it ever see the light of day? I SINCERELY doubt it.

@eyescreamcake

7 жыл бұрын

Fargo, ND is considering it for electing city commissioners.

@ClayShentrup

4 жыл бұрын

Fargo adopted it by a 64% landslide last year.

i’m with mr squash

If dwhee wants to say or imply that maybe Plurality is as good as Approval, then s/he needs to say why. We've stated some big ways that Approval improves on Plurality. dwhee hasn't been very specific with us about Approval's "disavantages compared to Pluralty". As for "other voting systems", that's vague. Anyway, Approval stands out as the most elegantly minimal improvement that lets everyone support their favorite, and chooses the most liked or accepted candidate.

PR is not readily feasible in the US, implementing such a change would require dramatic political reforms unlikely to suceed. I think you're right that it would be more politically feasible to reform the SMP system than get rid of it. SMP, in any form, is still highly inferior to PR in general though.

The problem is what happens if voters who voted A and B start to only vote one party? if both parties drop 4% then C could win. A 40% -4% = 36% B 41% -4% = 37% C 38% When voters start to play chicken, instead of voting people who are in your party you only vote one candidate in order to make them win and the other one lose. When both sides do this the third party C could win only for that reason.

Most of the reasons boil down to "voters are too stupid to use IRV ballots correctly". I also can't find the Bayesian regret thing.

Where has “Approval Voting” proved to be better than traditional American voting?

They have to manufacture a spoiler effect as soon as they want to TRY to win. That doesn't imply that they succeed. If they do, then hooray for them. If not, it's a spoiler effect, and it seems like it would breed more resentment than the spoiler effect being an inevitable part of the process. But as another guy said, they won't know until they try. So they'll try a lot.

What if you like squash but would be horrified with blueberry so you would also vote for peach who you very much dislike. That is the flaw with this voting system

@vagabondwastrel2361

5 жыл бұрын

That negates the safety vote. Think of it like the last American election. Clinton was one of the most corrupt politicians to ever run for office. But I would rather have clinton instead of a socialist like bernie. Trump was simply the obvious choice mostly because he was running like a 80-90's democrat socially but ended up acting like a conservative. My point is that there are flaws to this method of election. Having a primary of similar candidates is great because it doesn't dilute the vote. The irony is the more steps you have in the voting process the less voter turnout you would end up with. I would probably have a primary system with candidates with similar ethos using a drivers license to vote so if you don't vote on the next stage you simply let your vote ride until you change your mind with another later vote.

One possible problem: One group runs a campaign specifically asking supporters to NOT vote for the potential spoiler, lest they win. In the example, the tomato could ask his supporters to not double vote b/c if they do, he will lose (according to recent polling). If the supporters buy in to the "all or nothing" strategy, the vote is split again.

@TheOsamaBahama

5 жыл бұрын

If the tomato does that, it's no different than we have today. So there is nothing to loose.

Why do I have such empathy for these cartoon produce?

This seems a little bit too simple. I'd say I preferred CGP Grey's take on this, but I love that you're getting the word out there!

1:23 Appropriate behaviour in elections?

"Everyone told Nader not to run" And Nader ran. Because Nader is a candidate, not a voter. And Nader was a spoiler. Not sure what point you're trying to make here. "Many would be challengers don't want to be spoilers" Which a minor candidate is required to be if they want a chance at victory. Peach is 17 points behind. He has to either drop out, or instruct his constituency not to vote for BB. BB retaliates by doing the same. Back to Plurality. (there goes gravity.)

"Peach doesn't care if his actions result in Squash's election- he's not a voter, he's a candidate." Everyone told Nader not to run. Many would-be challengers don't want to be spoilers. "Under Plurality he is within 1 percentage point. Under Approval he is down by 17." Approval's purpose isn't to make Peach win. It's to let his voters support their favorite. You really _won't_ know till you try. Approve Favorite, test strengthBut no voting-system can make you popular if you aren't.

To dwhee: No, the intention of Approval is never give anyone reason to not fullly support their favorite, and to let everyone evaluate each candidate. "Not having a chance"? You won't know till you try, and Approval (unlike Plurality) gives you no reason to not try. Approve your favorite(s), because you have no reason not to. You just might find that Favorite can win. Unliked candidates still won't win. But Peach has no reason to not run, and find out if he can win.

Isn’t this essentially saying we should allow people to vote twice? One vote for one candidate you like. One vote for another candidate.

@tsavorite1973

4 жыл бұрын

No. It does not allow a person to vote twice for the same candidate. It only allows each person to express their "approval" for any and all of the candidates they feel can do the job of representing them.

@erikzoe1

4 жыл бұрын

I don't see it that way. Every voter gives a yes or a no to each candidate.

@YamadaDesigns

4 жыл бұрын

Think of your ballot as your full vote. Each yes/no you give a candidate would be an equal fraction of your full vote.

STAR voting is better

That's not what IRV is. Stop comparing AV to something I'm not advocating. STV is still better in a single winner case.

Preferential voting already exists to overcome the shortcomings of first past the post.

@TheCenterforElectionScience

7 жыл бұрын

There are a number of methods that fall within the space of ranking. The one that you're likely thinking of has its own issues. See here: electology.org/approval-voting-versus-irv

@eyescreamcake

7 жыл бұрын

There are many kinds of preferential voting. The one most people advocate, instant-runoff (IRV), is deeply flawed and typically eliminates the best (most representative) candidates in the first round, even when they have the broadest support and would win against every other candidate if paired against each other. Approval or score voting are superior to preferential systems.

@DrEhrfurchtgebietend

6 жыл бұрын

All preferential voting systems suffer from Arrow's Impossibility theorm. This proves they suck by definition.

And, back to the Nader example that you really shouldn't have mentioned, he would have done exactly that: instructed his supporters (people who "favorite" him) to not vote for Gore (or Bush of course). Gore would've done the same, but probably wouldn't need to because Nader still wouldn't have a chance. Third party candidates don't just grin and bear a system that is against them. The example in the video assumes they have fruit for brains.

I just explained how Approval gives minor candidates more reason not to try than a spoiler effect. Peach doesn't care if his actions result in Squash's election- he's not a voter, he's a candidate. He does care if he can win. Under Plurality he is within 1 percentage point. Under Approval he is down by 17. He's frowning under plurality, smiling under approval. Propaganda much? "You won't know till you try." This would solve the issue. Unfortunately polls exist and candidates aren't stupid.

American idol style voting.

IRV is just STV with two rounds. I agree that IRV is terrible, but STV is better than AV.

I kind of like the idea, but I would add preference ranking.

You should be able to make one mark in support for mr.peach, and two for madam blueberry. Or two for mr.squash and none for the other two. Or just one for everyone and a second for peaches. It would only mean adding an additional box to every cabarets' names. It would insure that there was never any doubt who you had most support for, but also allow the pollers to see just who the most people agreed upon. We could have over a dozen parties in the primary and a dozen canadets for each party(presuming that we're voting digitally. Otherwise, we'd more likely limit it to whoever had more than %1 of the state's population as members would be considered a viable party, and whoever had more than %25 of their party's poll positively for them, be considered a viable canedet.) In the general, we could have any number of parties and canedets and it would still work. If you didn't know who you liked best, just give one vote to everyone in the party that you think represents you best, or to absolute everyone in all parties except one or two canedets that you have major disagreements with

What about Bucklin voting. In this example, 32,33,35% there is no majority. Then and only then would you add in the second choice. Option A: Lets say blueberry had 60% squash had 35% and peach 5% in the first round. There is a clear majority support for Blueberry, and no need to add in a second vote. Of which lets say all of squash and all of blueberry approved of peach just because they didn't want there enemy to get elected. Thus, with approval voting 60% blueberry, 100% peach, and 35% squash. (Even if you require the 5% that voted for peach to make a second choice, peach a person only 5% of the people love wins. Option B: Now, lets say the first round went 40% blueberry 25% peach, and 35% squash, but ~half of the people from both blueberry and squash also approved of peach. and 10% each of peach's vote were ok with each blueberry and squash (20% blueberry, 5% peach & 15% squash only liked there first choice). . . the total then being 50% blueberry, 60% peach, and 55% squash. Clearly, peach is liked by more people. But it allowed people to clearly state there first choice. Option "A" approval voting is bad, Option "B" approval voting is ok. Instant runoff would work in A because 5% is such a low number, but would not be triggered because there is a clear winner. Instant runoff on b would be bad. There is clearly a close 3rd (peach is only 15% behind the leader). Instant runoff would cut them out of the race even though 60% of the people like him. Heck, lets say all of blueberry and all of squash approve of peach, now he gets 100% approval. Thus Bucklin, allows for approval, but does not skew to someone no one would vote for in there first choice... It allows a viable strong first choice, but does not eliminate a strong 3rd party option that everyone can honestly approve of, and get behind. Think of bucklin as instant runoff to approval.

@pmheart6

10 жыл бұрын

the only strategic voting that can skew Bucklin voting is called bullet voting*, and it only works if both front runner voters only vote for there first choice. However, if there is a strong 3rd party candidate..... a possibility because Bucklin voting gives them viability, those 3rd party voters _may_ vote for a second choice. i.e. the one that the losing front runner normally benefits from when a 3rd party candidate "splits the vote" thus, it behooves all parties to vote there second choice. Except possibly the front running first choice who's vote was split to the 3rd party, but who wants to risk that? If you don't like the third party only vote your first choice. If you are truly ok with the third choice and truly hate the opposing candidate, then add a second round vote *NOTE: Bullet voting is when the voters only vote for there first choice.

@filthynice88

5 жыл бұрын

Ima hit that "like" because you took your time ...quality....but both examples given points to no change

@eileenvilaca

5 жыл бұрын

I realise that this comment is old, but in option A, if everybody likes Peach, why shouldn’t they win? Either way, you can’t base your opinions on a system of vote entirely on a single outcome.

The one problem I see with Approval Voting is that while it's obvious that you approve your favourite candidate and not your least favourite, whether or not to approve in-between ones can depend on how other people will vote, which we don't even know until it's too late. For instance, with 3 candidates, one excellent, one so-so and one dreadful, approving the so-so candidate will increase their chances against whichever of the other two does better. So, if the dreadful candidate is going to beat the excellent one, then it's best to approve the so-so one, but if the excellent candidate is going to beat the dreadful one, then it's best not to approve the so-so one.

@5pp000

2 жыл бұрын

True. This is what people refer to as strategic voting. I don't think it's a big problem with AV because whichever choice you make, you're not improving the chances of the dreadful one winning.

@dylanc9145

2 жыл бұрын

Approval isn't about any single election, it's about fostering a political system that encourages bridge builders and allowing people to vote across the aisle without sacrificing their ability to support candidates that they more closely fall in line with.

Brown v Smallwood in 1915 found approval voting unconstitutional because it produced more votes than voters in the final count. You can't have an election with more votes than there are voters, only less. Ranked choice voting still allows people to vote for as many candidates as they would like but does not produce more votes than voters.

@markmidgley416

3 жыл бұрын

How about Score-Than-Automatic-Runoff, STAR Voting? kzread.info/dash/bejne/ZWGhsceOiKTRhpM.html

@dylanc9145

2 жыл бұрын

The ruling is unconstitutional and would thrown out in a heartbeat if truly tested. Also I'm pretty sure you lack the mental faculties to understand how approval voting works.

So what if I think it is clear that (evil) squash has no chance, but I like peach a lot more than blueberry? Should I just vote for peach, even though I'd much prefer blueberry to squash? What if a lot of people do this, for both peach and blueberry? Couldn't this cause squash to win? Isn't that still vote splitting?

@CaptTerrific

7 жыл бұрын

It's not vote splitting, because you decided to vote "disapprove" for blueberry. When she loses, it's a result of you actually STATING WITH YOUR VOTE that you don't want her. You chose to split your vote - it wasn't intrinsic to the system. Yes, this makes it harder for you to ensure you get your #1 choice of candidate - however it makes sure the winner is more acceptable to the whole of the electorate. You're sacrificing the idea of guaranteeing a majority-backed candidate winning, and replacing it with a winner who is most acceptable to the most people.

@spruce_goose5169

4 жыл бұрын

@@CaptTerrific That seems like a non-answer. It IS vote splitting if you have a preference for blueberry over squash, but still much prefer Peach. There's no way to reflect this preference.

@AlanSavage

4 жыл бұрын

@@spruce_goose5169 It's true that approval voting doesn't let voters differentiate on how much they like a candidate. STAR voting is better for that, but it is more difficult to implement and understand how the votes are counted. Any of STAR voting, approval voting, or IRV are much much better than plurality voting because they get rid of the minor third party spoiler effect. Anyone interested in vote reform should approve any one of the three.

_We don't like the way you've been voting recently. Let's go ahead and change that!_

"Many would be challengers don't want to be spoilers" "Which a minor candidate is required to be if they want a chance at victory" Wrong. If Nader-preferrers think Gore is better than Bush,and think Nader might not win, then they can approve both Nader and Gore. If Nader's showing's showing indicates he might have a win, then next time his preferrers can approve onlly him. But if the Dems aren't acceptable, then don't approve them either. I wouldn't.

I still don't see why this is better than Single Transferable Vote. The only benefit that has been brought up is that STV is complicated just because of the multiple rounds. Just because something is easier to understand doesn't make it better. What if all 3 candidates had the same amount of support, i.e. if anyone who would've voted for any 1 of them voted for all three? There would be a lot of ties under this system, and it doesn't take the voters preference for one candidate over the others.

Works well for three candidates. But what about with four or more? And what about the expense of elections? Viable new parties HAVE emerged in American history, and out-of- touch ones have disappeared. But they haven't emerged just months before a Presidential election. They emerged around principles and attracted credible politicians and produced candidates for local as well as national officeI don't think that Lincoln would have ever been elected President with plurality voting. There were four Presidential candidates in 1860 and three of them were saying: "Anybody but Lincoln." I think Stephen A. Douglas would have won. You remember him; he's the one who debated Lincoln in Illinois over the slavery issue. I don't know if the country would have been better or worse with him as President for four years or more but it sure would have been different. Plurality voting isn't going to change anything if the only people we are voting for are the weak, corrupt and fanatical people who have been running for office as of late. A choice of between rotten fruit and veggies is no choice at all. We need better CANDIDATES not a new system. If Bloomberg had the guts to finally join a party as Sanders did he'd be a real contender and might have won a party nomination.

@TheCenterforElectionScience

7 жыл бұрын

Approval voting is actually one of the best voting methods when many candidates run. It's much less intimidating to the voter with many candidates compared to other approaches such as ranking. Also, Bloomberg would have likely ran had we been using approval voting. He decided not to run because of vote splitting with the "center squeeze effect", which would have caused an outcome he favored worse than had he not run at all. The current voting method is what caused Bloomberg not to run, not his personal bravery or ambition.

@kimhunter7763

7 жыл бұрын

It seems this would work with four and the election is no more expensive than normal. it's instant runoff voting without the ranking but, it does happen in one election. We need better candidates and a better system. This would be a great start.

@BigDBrian

7 жыл бұрын

But doesn't approval voting encourage you to vote *against* a candidate rather than *for* what you like? Because, if you don't like a candidate (you disapprove, so to speak) you can check with every single other candidate(even if you wouldn't do it independently) to give you the highest chance of the unapproved candidate to lose. I.e. you get tactical voting, and voting against a candidate, which as far as I know, eventually leads to a two party system!

@CaptTerrific

7 жыл бұрын

Approval voting won't yield a 2-party system, since: 1) you don't encourage fusion of smaller, weaker parties into a larger one, and 2) you don't get consistent elimination of smaller, weaker parties, because you can still vote for them without fear of being a spoiler (since, again, you can vote for more than one candidate/party) As for encouraging you to vote for/against: that's precisely the point! However in this system, you're far more likely to find someone that you DO like. You still vote against those you dislike by voting "disapprove," however this move is NOT - as you proposed - encouraging you to vote "approve" for everyone else. In fact, if you vote "approve" for someone you dislike, you're actually helping that candidate, while simultaneously not having ANY effect on your other "disapprovals" whatsoever. You may be getting to the point where you're realizing you'd have to "approve" of 2 candidates you could live with vs. others who you despise, even though you prefer one of those two a lot more. This is where range voting comes in, where you can actually score each candidate, instead of this process's strict yes/no input

@BigDBrian

7 жыл бұрын

"while simultaneously not having ANY effect on your other "disapprovals" whatsoever. " It does have an effect. Say I don't want Sheldon to win, because I absolutely hate him. To give the greatest chance of someone else winning, I'd approve everyone else, even if rated on their own I wouldn't 'approve' (but they're tolerable). I guess this part depends on what you consider worth approving, and if it's equivalent to what you can tolerate. I did not mean that you'll vote a person you surely don't want to win. Anyhow, back on point. I hate Sheldon, I don't know which other candidates will be the highest, but I still want to help that candidate beat Sheldon, so I vote everyone BUT Sheldon.

I never said tactical voting had to do with difficulty. Either way, the points on IRV being more difficult are irrelevant in my opinion. Those are consequences which can be overcome without AV, or aren't worth switching to AV for its cons with respect to IRV.

Why is something democratic necessarily good?

Why did the video style have to be so annoying? *Turns back to CGPGrey*

If your second best is a likely to get as many votes as your first choice then you will most certainly harm your first choice by also voting for your second choice. Not harming your first choice is always going to be the priority of voters and IRV guarantees that but approval does not.

@dylanc9145

2 жыл бұрын

Then you don't vote for the second candidate... are you dumb?

"I don't know about you, but I don't listen to what my favorite candidate "instructs" me to do at the polls." What a thing to say. Yes you do. He's your favorite candidate. Either that or you're proud of being an irrational non-strategic voter, in which case keep on truckin. How a few irrational people behave is irrelevant. The closer an election is, the fewer non-strategic voters there are. Most voters can only dream of being as non-strategic and free-spirited as yourself.

This is great, so informative. Thank you!

In a real election, all candidates would simply tell their constituencies to disregard approval voting. Peach would tell his fruit supporters that a vote of approval for Blueberry is a vote against Peach. Blueberry would do the same. The only people with a choice would be those betraying their favorite candidate. By the way, 2:00 not only depicts Peach smiling about his loss of percentage points, but also seemingly as the winner? This is why you don't outsource propaganda.

oof all these political ads showing up in someone who can't care right now, at least it's not PragerU this time though

Sounds good, in cartoon format. It's a bit harder to imagine people juggling a ballot with ten races, each having ten candidates.

Seems to me that this could be used in a similar form as jerrymandering.

It looks like ranked choice without the rankings.

Uhh no its fucking not its almost like this is giving some people an advantage by literally doubling their power

@ClayShentrup

5 жыл бұрын

On the contrary, Approval Voting makes all voters equal. Let's say the race is tied, and you vote for candidate X, while I vote for the ideological opposite candidates, Y and Z. It's still a tie! Our votes were opposite, but _equal_. With the standard choose-one system, supporters of Y and Z would effectively have less power because they have multiple options.

So if Peach shares many of the same views as Blueberry, why run against her? Funny how that was not addressed.

@ClayShentrup

5 жыл бұрын

Why should Peach stay out instead of Blueberry? And why should voters only have their choices limited to two options to prevent a catastrophe that can totally be prevented by a simple voting system upgrade like Approval Voting?

@erikzoe1

4 жыл бұрын

Peach might share many, but not all, of Blueberry's views, and still consider it worth running.

I'm just glad someone is finally making political ads for infants. This is the most condescending thing I've seen in a while. The point of one person, one vote is: people who may only prefer one candidate would have half the power as someone who would be okay with 2. Seems like the establishment parties are getting spooked at the new wings that are finally showing themselves.

Single transferable voting is better....

@DrEhrfurchtgebietend

6 жыл бұрын

In no way is that true. STV is the worst system. It dose not even have monotonicity. This means that ranking somebody higher can cost them the election.

@milianozuniga-deanda4955

6 жыл бұрын

What the hell are you referring to!? It's likely that NO ONE will garner the majority threshold usually required because there's more legit options and if their 1st preferred candidate doesn't win. It's passes on their vote to their 2nd option...To have this belief that someones ALWAYS going to get that majority threshold without having unhappy people that were the minority is oblivious. STV/AV is the best because no one will mostly likely garner it, and people aren't 'happy.' But there satisfied.

If you did that, Lincoln never would've won.

@robinschnell470

5 жыл бұрын

You can't possibly know that.

RCV with a multicandidate (i.e. top 3 to 5 spots) RCV runoff if no candidate gets over 50% of the total turnout after exhausted ballots would address most problems.

No way, no way in hell would I be ok with people voting for two candidates. Sorry no freaking way.

@MatthewDempsky

6 жыл бұрын

Why not?

@patrickobermiller

6 жыл бұрын

Matthew Dempsky because if I'm third party why would I want my vote to go to someone else as Well? That's not third party that's a vice president running on a seperate ticket. It's a way to get the more extreme votes counted toward the more popular party and it is wrong. If your views are so closely tied that you could be running mates what's the point of a second canidate?

@TheOsamaBahama

5 жыл бұрын

Patrick, most of the time, the opposite will happen. Voters of party A hate the party B, and vice versa. So they can both vote for party C, to prevent the other party from winning. That's usually the only way a third party can win, by the way (if it had big chances, it would be a major party, not a third party).

@patrickobermiller

5 жыл бұрын

@@TheOsamaBahama and how possibly could you know what happens most of the time? Is this approval voting used by any country in the world to elect their leaders?

@eileenvilaca

5 жыл бұрын

No, Patrick, but FPTP is, and strategic voting is fairly common.

This whole thing is negated if you have one more person with similar views to squash. You split the vote both ways so the most popular candidate wins

The main issue with this is it removes the weight of choice between candidates and allows inflated numbers. Let's say you have a ticket of Trump, Hillary, and two 3rd party people. With this voting system if you like a 3rd party person mostly but still wanna screw over Trump YOU CAN. And also the point of 1 vote is to weigh each candidate and decide if he/she is best for the job. With this, you can remove that and just vote for everyone except one guy you despise. We have the electoral college to prevent "Mob Mentality" and to prevent high population states like California and New York from always determining the president or government official. With today's world and today's voters, we would ALWAYS see Democrat victories and god forbid a possible Socialist president. You think Socialism is good? Venezuela has a few words on that.

@irishmancheckinin6540

5 жыл бұрын

thank you. this shit is ridiculous

@TheFacelessStoryMaker

5 жыл бұрын

@@batboy3746 How exactly is it shit? You give no reason.

@emilysimmons600

5 жыл бұрын

@@TheFacelessStoryMaker that and the fact you don't know the difference between socialism and Democratic socialism. It's frustrating but I guess I can't be too upset at the individual since everyone from fox to msnbc don't accurately report it as well as many politicians... you know the ppl who benefit from the current system. That's probably coincidence tho, right? Also fyi when you (and ppl anywhere on political spectrum) bring up Venezuela in the discussion of current progressive movement you appear super disingenuous&fear monger-y or really really ignorant.

@emilysimmons600

5 жыл бұрын

@@TheFacelessStoryMaker Or in your& others defense misinformed.. which is actually worse than just being uninformed.

Or you know, switch from a SMP to a system of proportional representation.

@ClayShentrup

4 жыл бұрын

No.

Sure, if the cheaper drug was also less effective and had new side effects of its own. Coincidentally, the harder it is to prove a drug is effective, the less it usually is.

This is basically a half-ass version of ranked-choiced voting (STV) lol...It's a good start, but ranked is better.

blueberry is a fruit

The problem with this is that it is trying to solve a perceived problem that (1) isn't a problem and (2) isn't necessarily cause for a whole new voting system that (3) has issues of its own. "Approval" voting or range voting as another poster put a spin on this below are great if we're voting for several potential outcomes (and we're just seeing what we would get *more* of).. but it makes no sense when there only can be 1 winner. Why doesn't it make sense? Well because I could vote for *all* candidates. EG... say I'm a moderate that leans left... another person is a moderate that leans right and then two other people are not moderates... Candidates A, B, and C, could still theoretically gain 2 votes each. A, B get one from me.. B and C one from the other moderate... A another from a more left voter and C another from a more right voter... that's 2 votes each. Essentially, "Approval" voting would lead to more ties and close calls. And, if we wanted to do a survey of what the people want, that would be great.. a sort of popularity contest of sorts.. but that is not what an election process is.. it has elements of a popularity contest, but is more of a confidence contest.. Whoever has the most staunch supporters wins. And, this makes more sense for an election than letting random mob votes rule. Voting should be a serious endeavor.. this sort of system proposed in this video trivializes votes and the election process. In a *supposed* attempt to solve a problem.. it misses the whole point of an election in the first place.

Preferential ranked-choice voting seems far more quantifiable than this system. I'm sorry, approval voting does not have my support.

@ClayShentrup

4 жыл бұрын

Approval voting is better than IRV in basically every way. www.electionscience.org/library/approval-voting-versus-irv/

This is how Salvador Allende took power in Chile.

@SneakyBadAssOG

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah, this is absurd. Let's say there two candidates that are against human rights and one that is for human rights. Doesn't matter if you chose only the one for human rights, both human and anti-human rights but even all of them. You'll still end up with a candidate that is against human rights because it's 2:1 from the beginning. This is how autocracy starts. Not to mention you get more votes than actual voters, at which point good luck proving fraud.

@ClayShentrup

2 жыл бұрын

No it isn't.

"It's so easy, there's no reason not to use it." There's a very good reason not to use it: it doesn't let you rank candidates from favorite to least favorite.

That would be a Single Transferable Vote, something that is already used, makes more sense, and is fairer, but Electology doesn't like it for some reason.

This seems like a distraction from the effort to enact Rank Choice Voting by those who want to muddy waters and keep power. It is intentionally vague and potentially problematic. The room for manipulation is concerning.

@MatthewDempsky

6 жыл бұрын

Rank Choice Voting seems like a distraction from Condorcet voting.

Approval would eliminate the spoiler effect. This would be good- until you consider the impact it would have on the decisions of third parties to run in the first place. The ability of third parties to "steal votes" (as in, earn votes that were not successfully earned by another party) is the only incentive they have to run. It's a bad incentive- but not as bad as the one that would keep them from ever winning against a mainstream candidate and would result in an even more rigid 2 party system.

I'm using minor to mean not of the two main parties. I think it's arguable that approval is worse than plurality for minor candidates because of their inability to "steal votes." The video only provides one very tailored example, and it's STILL an example of exactly this flaw.

1 person 1 vote. Do you understand how easy it would be to manipulate the scores of that election if that was in use? We are a constitutional republic not a democracy. Plus you can't allow tag team politicians, in this case 2 vs 1. It's wrong and kinda dirty when you think about it.

@irishmancheckinin6540

5 жыл бұрын

but how else can they get rid of Trump? cheating is the only way

Approval voting doesn't make sense to me because it's still going to allow the majority to rule over the minority. Even if the majority doesn't necessarily want what they voted for the most above all other choices. It needs to be more specific. I will never not want to eat pizza, but that doesn't mean it's my first or even second choice every single day. If I always approve of pizza for dinner, that doesn't accurately reflect what I would prefer that day. Maybe my second choice was Indian food, and maybe that was the second choice of 51% of all voters. However, because 49% of all voters hate Indian food, now they won't vote for Indian food at all. So, pizza wins at 75%, because 75% of all voters wouldn't mind eating pizza for the 13th day in a row if they can't have what they really want. In ranked choice, let's say that some people are just sick of Mayor Blueberry. Their first vote is for Squash, and their second vote is for Peach. The voters that approve of Peach as their first choice would have their votes pooled with voters for Squash. Now, Peach wins, because voters for Squash were tired of Blueberry. If it were an approval vote, then voters for Peach would probably also vote for Blueberry. If that's the case, then Blueberry wins. This is because Blueberry has more overall popularity than any other candidate. That doesn't make Blueberry the most preferred choice by all voters, however.

@ClayShentrup

2 жыл бұрын

No, approval voting finds the *centroid* position. It's not that the left-most or right-most 51% "majority" will just automatically get their way. Because (game theory warning) those in the center have an incentive to "defect" to support a candidate further toward the center. The Nash equilibrium is that you elect the Condorcet (beats-all) winner, who's generally in the dead center of public opinion. Computer simulations measuring average voter satisfaction show that approval voting behaves extremely well. See "Bayesian regret".