What is a horse’s primary concern when voting? A stable economy.

@enzoqueijao

4 жыл бұрын

booo!

@free_siobhan

4 жыл бұрын

This guy!

@enzoqueijao

4 жыл бұрын

@Krishna Laxkar 🔫 you got one minute to understand the joke, or you're getting the Glock.

@samamry9032

4 жыл бұрын

Thank you ^_^

@Dr_Ragon

4 жыл бұрын

That said, when asked if it was in favor of the bill, it said neigh

ted-ed:Which voting system is the best? Me: I don't know, that's why I'm here

@robbe1534

4 жыл бұрын

I think the best is Distributed Voting (DV); here you find a description of the method (see Procedure): electowiki.org/wiki/Distributed_Voting

@jacobandrews2663

4 жыл бұрын

@@robbe1534 Oh that's really cool and interesting, I didn't know that existed. However, wouldn't that (over time) incentivize voters to assign all 100 points to their candidate of choice since, if they don't, someone who does assign all points to their candidate of choice will inevitably overshadow their first choice

@pepemotion

4 жыл бұрын

This depends on how you normalize the scores. Personally I prefer a simple free scoring system. Its more intuitive and still allows better expression than any of the ranked methods shown on the video.

@robbe1534

4 жыл бұрын

@@jacobandrews2663 DV eliminates the worst candidate by redistributing the points, so if you give all 100 points to a candidate who is eliminated among the first, the vote becomes irrelevant. To avoid this it's better to distribute the points. Also, you consider that using range [0,10] (then converted to 100 point votes), it's difficult to accumulate points.

@robbe1534

4 жыл бұрын

@@pepemotion DV can use votes with range [0,10] (then converted to a 100 point vote), appearing from the voters' point of view, as a free scoring system.

Highlander method: voting to eliminate the worst, until theres only one.

@birdy4112

4 жыл бұрын

Yes the purge

@michaelgscott1799

4 жыл бұрын

But that would be a very long process

@stormmeansnowork

4 жыл бұрын

Whichever way will be fine as long as it is not China's way China's way = the non-elected govt makes all the decisions forever for the country with the claim that these are the people's unanimous decisions.

@tine2835

4 жыл бұрын

for me it’s also unfair. like if everybody knows you’re a threat then they would join forces to eliminate you first.

@tjm.

4 жыл бұрын

*whistles* do mi re fa~~ 🕊️

One thing not mentioned in this video is that plurality voting also "incentifizes lying about your preferences" not just multiple rounds. This happens (kind of) in the US, where people might want to vote for a third party (ex. green party, libertarian party, etc.) might end up voting for the democratic/republican candidate because they think that the third party they support is unlikely to win.

@teplapus8795

11 ай бұрын

For example, South and East base residents could agree to vote for North to keep West base from winning

@danejohannescaldwell7999

8 ай бұрын

And it gets worse - not only does supporting a third party not help them win, but it also draws votes away from the major party you otherwise would have supported. Too often, this leads to your worst option getting elected. I like to describe Plurality as mathematically driving us to a two-party system, and this is why.

I participate in condorcet voting everyday when playing rock paper scissors

@Warrka4

4 жыл бұрын

It's the only true way of making any sort of decision.

@hangukhiphop

4 жыл бұрын

And choosing a starter Pokemon!

@cookchen118

3 жыл бұрын

Well said

@JonatasAdoM

3 жыл бұрын

@@Warrka4 There's a similar one. One side picks odd, the other even, then like RPS both show their numbers at the same time, the total sum of the numbers will decide if even wins or odd.

@SoumDhagreat

3 жыл бұрын

JonatasAdoM oh yea odd or eve. That's basically like cricket though so it doesn't have the same system as rock paper scissor cause it in voles more of statistics than this.

CGP Grey has taken over Ted Ed

@Aheks1738

4 жыл бұрын

Expecting to see this comment as soon as i saw the title

@merrittanimation7721

4 жыл бұрын

I approve of this coup

@xan1455

4 жыл бұрын

i wonder how he change his voice

@orchidquack

4 жыл бұрын

Came here to say that :)

@Sinaeb

4 жыл бұрын

@@merrittanimation7721 The rule for rulers.

I actually took a whole class centered around the mathematics surrounding politics. We spent weeks just on voting systems

@davidoleaaguilar8920

4 жыл бұрын

In which class?, game theory?

@Knightmessenger

3 жыл бұрын

Different voting systems should be in basic civics classes.

@midnite8729

3 жыл бұрын

@@Knightmessenger yes! Its scary how clueless we are with voting

@callmeswivelhips8229

3 жыл бұрын

Fascinating! I'd like to learn more myself

@drrodopszin

2 жыл бұрын

Did you vote which one was your favorite?

All too often we laud "popular vote" as a majority system when in reality it's most often a plurality in most countries and this video very well illustrates how that system can be flawed and other systems in comparison. Kudos!

@phs125

Жыл бұрын

Yes, USA for example, has most of the population in East and West coasts. So if they had a popular vote system, everything would be unfair to the farmers in the vast land in the middle. Current system they have is worse, but popular vote doesn't solve everything.

@dinamosflams

Жыл бұрын

what do you mean? most countries use a two rounds system, not a straight up plurality.

@Ry_TSG

Жыл бұрын

@@phs125 However, there are far less farmers in the interior of the country than there are people who live on the coasts. Does it really make sense to divide people up by where they live? No. The votes of the people on the coast should count just as much as anywhere else, and the election should be about the policies the candidates espouse, because not everyone who lives on the coast is going to vote in one way and not everyone who lives in the heartland will vote the same way.

Maybe it’s the friends we made along the way

@NA-AN

4 жыл бұрын

No, NO, NO WE CANNOT KEEP THIS MEME, JOKE, WHATEVER THE F*CK IT IS!

@bari4007

4 жыл бұрын

Adam Abdi why not?

@Jobe-13

4 жыл бұрын

😂

@somebodylikesbacon1960

4 жыл бұрын

The friends we made along; the way home

@Ryan-fq9su

4 жыл бұрын

Nah

0:13 I love how you guys put the sound of a person breathing in a space suit and the sound of a space ship. Just gave the video a special touch 💝

@tracydu8052

4 жыл бұрын

Radical Change 140 likes with only one reply?

@xandeath75

4 жыл бұрын

183 likes with two replies?

@FM-fc6uk

4 жыл бұрын

206 like with three replies?

@fabian2062

4 жыл бұрын

217 with only four?

@adityabagdi1178

4 жыл бұрын

Wow , I didn't even realized that😅

Ugh. I love it when he says “not necessarily.” Iconic.

Let's give a big hand to Ted-ed for there immense hard work for making education videos on all aspects of life.

@darian2975

4 жыл бұрын

Yea I don't really dig TED Talks but TED-Ed is the bomb

@Inkyminkyzizwoz

4 жыл бұрын

*their

@marlonmoncrieffe0728

4 жыл бұрын

Crash Course too! These channels are revolutionizing education!

*Meanwhile Putin and kim Jong unn :* Uh huh

@sweetcandysugaarmy8480

4 жыл бұрын

Xi Jinping :" Hmmm..."

@yuliusseraph4973

4 жыл бұрын

America and China: hmmmm

@MrSafer

4 жыл бұрын

Britain: this is not the vote you were looking for

@moustafakhattab8142

4 жыл бұрын

dont understand first of all russia is a democracy and nk is a dictatorship

@carmi7042

4 жыл бұрын

@@moustafakhattab8142 No, Russia is an oligarchy led at the moment by Putin. The basilar freedoms are limited, (not eliminated) and it's impossible to candidate aganist Putin (so he can win everytime)

I know CGP Grey is gonna like this episode of TED-Ed

@tracydu8052

4 жыл бұрын

Taco?

@LeagueUnionSevens

4 жыл бұрын

Nah, CGP Grey's videos were significantly better. This one doesn't even mention MMP, which is undeniably the fairest voting system in practice.

@stonferen584

3 жыл бұрын

@@LeagueUnionSevens You mean STV not MMP

@LeagueUnionSevens

3 жыл бұрын

@@stonferen584 No, I mean a parliamentary system elected under MMP, which allows for broader representation than STV. Look at CGP Grey's videos on STV and MMP to see what I mean.

@stonferen584

3 жыл бұрын

@@LeagueUnionSevens And how does it allow for more broad representation?

Meanwhile in Pakistan: *The military will decide your fate*

@OGrandomunknownperson

4 жыл бұрын

Egypt: first time?

@bigbrother7952

4 жыл бұрын

Oof

@fisherfriendman

3 жыл бұрын

The USA: Everytime. No matter how you vote, we still go to war with someone to smash their nose.

@trollinape2697

3 жыл бұрын

@@fisherfriendman Nah Republicans after the war generally became more lenient

@starwarsman176

3 жыл бұрын

Cambodia: no matter how you vote it will some how be the ruling party

I'd choose North no matter where I'd live, it being centermost.

@brookeault8453

4 жыл бұрын

Unfortunately, most people (at least from the ones I know) wouldn’t

@kubli365

4 жыл бұрын

Ah, a centrist

@katkat3458

4 жыл бұрын

That idea is called compromising. Everyone doesnt necessarily benefit but it's the anwer that satisfies most

@abcxyz-

3 жыл бұрын

No Just imagine going from Brazil to china each time you have an important work. No one would.

@hieratics

3 ай бұрын

Even if it was North Korea?

This video was brought to you by CGP Grey

@bestrongcourageous2932

4 жыл бұрын

Hey what is CGP Grey? I am not familiar with that term.

@me_myselfand_i2099

4 жыл бұрын

@@bestrongcourageous2932 it's a youtube channel known for their videos on voting systems

@Zeragamba

4 жыл бұрын

@@me_myselfand_i2099 and other very interesting videos

@me_myselfand_i2099

4 жыл бұрын

@@Zeragamba well he's best known for voting systems which is why I mentioned those videos. He does make other interesting videos as well

@LeagueUnionSevens

4 жыл бұрын

CGP Grey's videos were significantly better. This one doesn't even mention MMP, which is undeniably the fairest voting system in practice.

"Which voting system is the best?" "Yes"

@joaovitormatos8147

4 жыл бұрын

I think a better answer would be "no"

@randomizedproductions5749

4 жыл бұрын

bad comment

@blackbomb9858

4 жыл бұрын

yes, but actually no

@prixiusnecrolance8531

4 жыл бұрын

Yesn't

@S2Tubes

4 жыл бұрын

Give people the illusion of choice to placate them, then do what ever you want anyway. Problem solved.

Short answer: Not the one used in Argentina.

@Hehehehsuckerrr

4 жыл бұрын

Kam which one is used in Argentina

@cami8144

4 жыл бұрын

If you know, you know ahre

@july6949

3 жыл бұрын

Argentina actually uses one of the best electoral systems ever created: proportional representation for congress and ballotage for the president.

@emilyleavitt4088

3 жыл бұрын

What voting system is used in Argentina?

*_“Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise..._* *_Democracy is the worst form of Government except for all the others.”_* - Winston Churchill, 1947

@unevilGenius

3 жыл бұрын

Direct democracy > representative democracy

@molybdaen11

3 жыл бұрын

Feudalism has been proven to be pretty stable, just saying.

@samuelforesta

3 жыл бұрын

@@molybdaen11 lol. But didn't the serfs usually overthrow the king's?

@samuelforesta

3 жыл бұрын

@@daotheeternalnamelessbeyon8778 Anarchism, and especially anarcho-capatalism is contradictory.

@molybdaen11

3 жыл бұрын

@@samuelforesta It happened from time to time, usually in areas like china where the king/emperor grown to powerful for external treats and forgot where his power came from. At one point the people have enough and replace the emeror with one of they own. This new emperor family will behave for a few generations until they forget the lesson as well and the circle continued. In europe uprisings were rare because most of the time the ruling familys had to defend themself from competition and needed the support of the people.

I live in Switzerland and most people love how the president is chosen. We vote for the party we want and then the party’s with the most votes can get on to seven on the seven seats available. No one has more than 2). Then all 7 elected have the same power and collaborate. They are each president for one year but have no additional power.

@TheFreakyable

4 жыл бұрын

I also love „Volksabstimmung“ since it really gives the power to the people and not just the parliament

@PlagueOfGripes

3 жыл бұрын

I can imagine US parties splitting in the same way monopolies "don't exist" while all being owned by mega corps. That is, Dems or Reps just form subsidiary parties that are legally distinct but the same rotation of people with the same financial interests. Our political parties are very good at subverting systems meant to benefit everyone, though.

@orfeas8

3 жыл бұрын

Seems pretty fair. They also apply direct democracy methods. Switzerland has a system closer to being called "democracy" than anyone else. Their methods indeed have similarities with original democracy in ancient Greece.

@ennykraft

3 жыл бұрын

The Swiss system is a close to a real democracy as it gets but that works better with a small, affluent population. But it also means that sometimes it takes too long a time to reach decisions and of course its success depends on voters being well informed and interested in politics.

@alexd832

3 жыл бұрын

@@TheFreakyable the problem with the people deciding is that it is easy that many do missinformed decisions but on the other hand you cant just deny them the vote

“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.” ― Martin Luther King Jr.

@tsarplague1228

4 жыл бұрын

What is the connection between this quote from Martin Luther king and this video

@revspikejonez

4 жыл бұрын

@@tsarplague1228 "hmm, what's voting?"

@foooooof

4 жыл бұрын

@@revspikejonez Not really the question on what is voting, but what is a fair system

@naryanr

4 жыл бұрын

@@tsarplague1228 the people who don't vote.

@callmeswivelhips8229

3 жыл бұрын

An active refusal to vote with a nuanced understanding of the position is a refusal to give your consent to the government. DO not blame the victim. If you look at Martin Luther King Jr, he would not have supported voting as a means to make your voice heard. He supported civil disobedience to accomplish that end. Particularly in his later years. Organized and sustained social movements accomplish things voting has always managed to suppress.

Random recommendation. Read the title as “Which VOMITING system is the best”...still clicked on it

@drdca8263

4 жыл бұрын

I’m told that if you think you are likely to vomit soon, drinking lots of water (but not like, extreme amounts, just large amounts) can make it much less unpleasant when it happens. Just some advice my dad gave me.

@agnivabanerjee3983

4 жыл бұрын

@@drdca8263 thank you!

@animalfriend6413

3 жыл бұрын

@@drdca8263 :-) Sounds as if a father (who was drunk in his younger times at every party) gave his now teenage child good advices how to deal with alcohol.

@drdca8263

3 жыл бұрын

animal friend I can see how it would seem like that, but my understanding is that my dad has always disliked the taste of alcohol enough to prevent being drunk more than a handful of times (a single time ?)

@animalfriend6413

3 жыл бұрын

@@drdca8263 Ok. That's why I put a smiley at the beginning.

"It doesn't matter who votes, it matters who counts the votes" - Stalin

@ryanstarlight8018

3 жыл бұрын

I feel like Trump would have been a good friend with him lmao

@redbitch3362

3 жыл бұрын

It doesn't matter how many could vote, what matters are the one who will vote

@kenninfeatherngill7671

3 жыл бұрын

@@ryanstarlight8018 lol Stalin and Trump would do great until they talk politics

@coachman1532

2 жыл бұрын

Stalin was a sick man

@jaynemeulman8484

2 жыл бұрын

um...Stalin was a tyrant....

New Zealand has the best voting system according to me. MMP (Mixed member proportional). Every citizen gets 2 votes - one for the party, another for the candidate.

@achaladka7225

4 жыл бұрын

@Kurt E. Clothier Direct democracy is not possible in big democracies

@bobbyferg9173

4 жыл бұрын

This system isn’t really a voting system like the ones in this video since it uses systems like first past the post to determine candidate winners and party seats are made proportional to the votes they receive. This seems to be less of a way to determine winners and more of a way to allocate power among the parties and individuals that do win.

@hart-of-gold

4 жыл бұрын

@Kurt E. Clothier In both Australia and New Zealand there are many parties but only 3 or 4 regularly win seats, the other minor parties are often single issue parties somewhat like lobbies. The competition for government boils down to 2 major partys, centre-left vs centre-right. If the voting system changed Americans would likely see the Greens and Libertarians grow and maybe a split between the Tea Party and GOP. But the major votes would still be between the Democrats and Republicans. From an outsiders view, one of the weirdest things about American politics is the 2 major partys aren't left and right, but centre-right and right-wing.

@almightyhydra

3 жыл бұрын

Yep - and then we ruin it by having a 5% minimum vote requirement (even though there are 120 seats so 0.83% is enough for a seat), plus the media devote 95+% of exposure to two parties and pretty much ignore the other fourteen. It's sad to see the potential of MMP go to such waste.

@hermannmeier9405

3 жыл бұрын

@@almightyhydra The vote Minimum is of course arbritrary( 4% in Austria, 5% in Germany 10 % in Turkey). In the Weimar Republic, and other countries this does not exist and often lead to scattered parliaments, blockades, chaos and coalitions of many Parties, that can't achieve anything and break up easily.

I think Borda Count, although not perfect, would probably be the best option. Convert the rankings into points, so a first choice gets 3 points, a second choice 2 and a third choice one, and the winner is the one with the highest overall score. It therefore elects the overall most popular/least unpopular option. In this example the winner would be North, which on the map does look like the best compromise. Admittedly two of the methods demonstrated also make North the winner in this example, but the problems with both are discussed.

@jamesabestos2800

Жыл бұрын

I prefer condocet

@erikzoe1

Жыл бұрын

​ @@jamesabestos2800 The main problem with Condorcet, as mentioned in the video, is that it doesn't always produce a winner. Aside from that, I agree, it's a good system.

@stirlingblackwood

10 ай бұрын

STAR (score then automatic runoff) voting would actually accomplish this even better than Borda count.

@erikzoe1

10 ай бұрын

@@stirlingblackwood STAR Voting does seem like a reasonable option as long as it successfully overcomes this problem in Range Voting where people vote tactically by only using the maximum and minimum scores. I'd need to see some real life figures to be able to assess that.

@sarahvanburen7819

7 ай бұрын

My favorite voting system is Black's System, which is kind of like a combination of Borda Count and Condorcet. It puts each candidate head to head, and if there's a candidate who's able to beat every other one in a one on one match (and is thus a Condorcet winner), that candidate wins automatically. Otherwise, it plays by the same rules as the Borda Count system.

i was actually googling some of this stuff on my own the other day, always nice to see a ted video about it

I literally read "which *vomitting* system is the best?"

Anakin my allegiance is to democracy

Kim jong un : *nods knowledgeably*

@immathechopsticksthatjinal5441

4 жыл бұрын

Lmao🤣🤣

@esmeray9704

4 жыл бұрын

Loll

I'm shocked to see no discussion here of range voting, in which voters give each option a score, say from 0 to 10. Key advantage: the theorem mentioned (Arrow's impossibility theorem), which proves that "all voting systems violate certain common sense fairness intuitions" applies only to "ordinal" systems, where your either pick a favourite or put options into preference order. Range voting is a Cardinal system, so this theorem doesn't apply. To see how it works, suppose all the Martian voters give 10 to the closest location, 7 to the next-closest, 4 to the third, and 0 to the furthest away. The most "central" location, North, wins - and this seems fair, since no-one scores it zero - i.e., it isn't any voter's least-favourite option (the same is true for South, but there are more people in North). If someone were to propose an "optimally central" location between the 4 Mars bases, to minimise the average airport travel-distance per Martian citizen, I would expect this proposal to beat North in a Range Vote, just as it should. In most other voting systems, such an obviously-fairest solution would almost certainly fail. It's worth mentioning that Star voting, cited as an example of voting systems to which the Arrow theorem applies, is actually a modified version of range (or "score") voting. The author really ought to know this!

@ClementinesmWTF

4 жыл бұрын

I was thinking the same thing. The fact that they mention Condorcet methods when Condorcet doesn’t even always produce a winner (let alone a “fair” winner) is a shame. They should’ve known that Arrow’s Theorem doesn’t apply to *all* voting systems (tho a stronger voting theorem does state that all voting systems, including Range and STAR, can be subject to strategic voting).

@andrewclifton429

4 жыл бұрын

@@ClementinesmWTF That's right. However, the negative impact of "rational" strategic voting in range-vote elections is quite limited: it may sometimes produce a theoretically "less than ideal" result, but it can't lead to the disastrous result of making a winner of a candidate most voters would honestly rate very negatively. Plurality voting and the various ordinal systems can all do that.

@omkarchavan5940

3 жыл бұрын

I like this and I feel that this as close as to getting to an ideal decision. On the other hand, This voting method may result in selection of candidate which no voter wants. Voters would feel they were deceived and would ask for re-election.

@anniekallen4472

3 жыл бұрын

I thought the same thing! No voting method is perfect, but STAR voting goes a lot farther than other methods. www.starvoting.us/criteria

@andrewclifton429

3 жыл бұрын

@@anniekallen4472 I'm afraid I disagree. Warren Smith, the leading expert on range voting, has a critique of star voting on his website, which I find convincing: rangevoting.org/StarVoting.html. Basically, star voting sacrifices many advantages of simple range voting, supposedly to sell itself to skeptics of new voting systems. The only theoretical advantage of Star is when there is a much higher level of strategic voting than is ever actually observed in real-world practical studies of score voting. That said, Star is better than all the ranked-choice options, as well as FPTP.

Wow, such an interesting video! Especially the presumptions make the whole thing so complex.

It's pretty clear that instant runoff has the best balance of fairness and simplicity. Perfect? No, that's impossible. But still excellent. I will be voting for it on the Massachusetts ballot this November and look forward to using it in future elections.

@Gamesaucer

4 жыл бұрын

IRV is pretty good, but you might want to take a look at this page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Comparison_of_Schulze_to_preferential_voting_systems IRV fails a bunch of criteria that I would personally consider important. For starters, IRV isn't monotonic, meaning that in some cases, ranking a candidate higher can prevent them from getting elected, and ranking them lower can get them elected where they otherwise wouldn't have been. It's also not a Condorcet method. Condorcet isn't a voting system, it's also a criterion. A voting method can be called a Condorcet method if it elects the Condorcet winner if there it one. It's where there _isn't_ one that they diverge. I believe Ranked Pairs is pretty good. It takes every possible matchup and ranks them by the percentage with which that matchup was won. Then you go down the list, "locking in" each candidate's relative ranking. When a result would cause things you become circular, you flip it. Since you start with the greatest victories, the people whose preferences are ignored (i.e. when a result is flipped) it ignores the least possible amount of people. Still, it seems like you've thought about this a lot, and ultimately you should go with the system you think is best (for example IRV has later-no-help and later-no-harm which many others don't). After all, what's voting for if not choosing the best out of a set of people's preferences? I wish you the best of luck this autumn.

@hkr667

4 жыл бұрын

@@Gamesaucer In the system where I live ranked pairs sounds like horror to vote on. I feel like that works better when the number of pairs is still quite limited.

@Gamesaucer

4 жыл бұрын

@@hkr667 What do you mean? You'd still just cast a single ballot. You'd just have to rank the candidates, and everything else would be extracted from that, same as other ranked voting methods. And in fact, since Ranked Pairs allows putting candidates on equal ranks, you can just, say, vote for the top 5 and leave the rest unranked. They'd collectively be your least favourite choice as a result. What you could even do, if for example things are organised into parties, but each member of each party can be elected, is a system where you _rank_ the parties, but give a single _preference vote_ to your preferred candidate within that party.

@Stratelier

4 жыл бұрын

@@hkr667 E.g. Say that there are 6 candidates (i.e. 15 pairs) and you rank them in this order: A > B > F > D > E > C. Since A is at the top of this list, this implies that not only (A > B) but also (A > F), (A > D), (A > E) and (A > C). Similarly, C is at the bottom so it's implied that (B > C), (F > C), and (D > C). The same logic applies to (B > D), (B > E), and (F > E).

@haulin

4 жыл бұрын

@Gamesaucer @@Stratelier Yes, but in the video they said you could have a rock-paper-scissors situation. A > B, B > C, C > A. I can't really imagine a situation where it would happen though. But I can imagine ties - A > B, B = C.

Summary: No voting system is fair Fairness can not be defined There's NO perfect way possible

@jugemujugemugokonosurikire4735

4 жыл бұрын

Well nothing is perfect in this world. If it were perfect, it's major flaw would be it's too perfect.

@jameshendrickx9322

4 жыл бұрын

@@jugemujugemugokonosurikire4735 how would a perfectly fair voting system for everyone (if it would exist) be a flaw ?

@0xDEAD_Inside

4 жыл бұрын

@@jugemujugemugokonosurikire4735 I would like to know as well.

@quintessenceSL

4 жыл бұрын

In any singular instance, you can point to a deficiency, but that is letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. What you have to look at is the system over numerous votes, and pick the best from there. Something like sortion, for instance, has a greater chance for the majority to win any particular vote, but isn't always guaranteed. But statistically, the will win the majority of elections, with minority views also wining a proportion of the time.

@cv4809

4 жыл бұрын

Conclusion: Democracy is a mistake

I love the starting soundtrack of their videos . It's kind of a relaxing sound. I would like to put it on and go to sleep.

Condorcet is the best one listed. The fact that there are sometimes circular ties is not a flaw of the voting system. Any election can result in ties. Condorcet just makes those ties apparent instead of choosing an unrepresentative candidate in those cases. That's a good thing.

@stirlingblackwood

10 ай бұрын

STAR (score then automatic runoff) voting is essentially score voting with a Condorcet-like runoff phase. It does a better job minimising tactical voting incentives.

@eyescreamcake

10 ай бұрын

@@stirlingblackwood Yes, STAR is very good too

@Sindigo-ic6xq

7 ай бұрын

according to simulations it is as good as ranked robin (described in the video) but easier to understand and calculate@@stirlingblackwood

Absolutely in love with these videos

Mount Rushmore of KZread learning: TED, CGP Grey, Crash Course & Vsauce.

@aria7083

4 жыл бұрын

Veritasium too😊

@DCBfanboy

4 жыл бұрын

And kurzgesagt!

@rickardkaufman3988

4 жыл бұрын

Philosophy Tube and Contrapoints.

@nigerianmapping1011

4 жыл бұрын

@JoJo Yawson My guy

@vedhansarvesh9527

4 жыл бұрын

Let's not forget Extra Credits

Queen Lion is still contemplating each method…

Instant runoff seems the best. The "bad result" in the video seems very constructed.

While there is no perfect voting system, some systems (e.g. STAR and STV, both not mentioned here) are way more representative and closer to the preference of most people. Probably the worst is plurality (first-past-the-post). CGP Grey has a good series about them. STV is great for maximum representation in parlimantary elections while STAR is great for single winner elections.

@CTimmerman

Жыл бұрын

Single Transferable Vote = Instant Runoff Voting covered at 1:11.

@erikzoe1

Жыл бұрын

@@CTimmerman They are not quite the same. Instant Runoff Voting is for electing a single winner, whereas Single Transferable Vote is for electing multiple winners.

Shame they didn't include Approval Voting- letting people vote for more than one option; winner is who has the most approval.

@WG55

4 жыл бұрын

Agreed. Also, while Condorcet can "cycle," Approval approximates to Condorcet without cycling. And it is *much* easier for the voter than any ranking system!

@jimmyfahringer5588

4 жыл бұрын

@@WG55 And approval voting's failure of the Condorcet criterion is illusory because it is based on a slightly different value system. When necessary, it will, by design, select candidates who may have fewer true supporters, but who have a higher share of voters who find them at least acceptable.

@rtyzxc

4 жыл бұрын

I'd upgade that by giving one vote that has power factor of two and any number of secondary votes with power factor of 1.

@anniekallen4472

3 жыл бұрын

Agreed, Approval voting and STAR voting are the best voting methods I've found. Approval does a really solid job at being fair/ accurate while being dead-simple, and STAR voting does a knock-out job while still being more simple than IRV. electionscience.github.io/vse-sim/VSEbasic/

@anniekallen4472

3 жыл бұрын

@@darbyl3872 Yeah, that's one of the things I love about STAR voting. It's very flexible and the voter can use it however they want: Like an Approval ballot, like a ranked ballot, like a scoring ballot, even FPTP if they want.

Thats so great and informative. Love you Ted-Ed

This was excellent. Thank you.

Interesting video. Greetings from Spain. Lots of love for everyone. Have a good day!

@aadeshsingh1816

4 жыл бұрын

Pehn yuva bondiya

@user-yg4en5mv2j

4 жыл бұрын

You too ^^!

@h3llomahdude216

4 жыл бұрын

Love from somaliland too...wow this is really funny,how we communicate this easily

@just-trying-my-best-everyday

4 жыл бұрын

Sos tan agradable, gracias. Igualmente para vos ytyu familia.

just use all the systems at once then pick the candidate which wins the most times

@Bongi344

4 жыл бұрын

Lots of money and time I guess

@brookeault8453

4 жыл бұрын

Idame Cantagile lol yeah people are lazy

Thanks a ton! I wasnt getting an idea how this proportional system works

Proportional Ranked-Choice Voting seems to be the best voting system yet imo

3:56 called non-transitive preferences. Logically though, preferences should be transitive. So condorcet should work 95% of the time. In the 5% case, just use a different voting system to break the tie.

I've seen convincing arguments that one of the best methods of determining the Condorcet winner in a single round of voting and best protection against favorite betrayal and other vote-splitting side effects, is STAR. Basically the optimal combination of IRV and approval/score. Not saying it's perfect (since there is no perfect), but since FPTP/plurality is basically the WORST, i'd say it's a vast improvement.

Thanks so much for this vid! And right on time for my math class, too.

For the Condorcet method, there's actually a good solution. You take the portion of votes N won against S, E, and W and get the geometric mean, the "volume" of support for N over all others. Do the same with each of the other candidates and you have a metric to rank them to see which is most preferred, without a circular outcome.

I have I think a very good idea. You make a vote where people vote with 5 different systems, so that each criteria (at the end of the video) is filled only once. After that, you look at the city that has the most victories. If there is a tie, the most second, most third... if the tie is perfect, second round.

@swordshield5592

Жыл бұрын

that is way too complicated for the normal person

@higoogle316

10 ай бұрын

That would take too long in practice. Maybe even years

…or you could just build four space ports

Like in this map, the correct space port is the one with the shortest length from each base to the port, added together and then multiplied with their population as a percentage of the total population. Then the most amount of people travel the least amount of distance. Somehow we need to define a map of the political spectrum, maybe using these voting systems with their different strengths and weaknesses in combination to define where people are located within the map. A politician must then, before anything else, get a thorough check for his position on the map. This could help clarify where they stand on certain issues. Huge questionnaires would have to be conducted, scaling what people think is most important. The size of the issue on the map could be its importance, the length and direction from the origin could be how much it matters for a specific party and which party the issue matters for. Most definitely doesn’t work in practice, but could be fun to test the idea

0:00 Intro 0:28 Graphical Modelling 0:40 1. FPTP/plurality 1:12 2. IRV/instant runoff 2:16 3. Two-Round runoff 2:46 Strategic/Tactile voting 3:01 4. Pairwise/Condorcet method 3:50 Cyclic Dep Tie (non-transitivity) 4:04 Reflection 4:14 Other methods (names) 4:41 Arrow's Impossibility Theorem (hint) 4:55 End

The two-party system exists in both the US and the UK and has thus almost a monopoly in the English-speaking world. But look no further than the EU and you'll find a great number of systems that we who are blessed to live in the EU consider standard: a multi-party democracy, where the parliament is proportional to the vote.

@Debre.

3 жыл бұрын

And then there's Hungary :/

@MrZZ-py4pq

3 жыл бұрын

@@Debre. based

@jaynemeulman8484

2 жыл бұрын

proportional systems often result in hung parliaments and unstable coalitions...not great as far as I am concerned..

@Xanthopathy

Жыл бұрын

@@Debre. based hungary does it again

I would like to mention though that there are several solution to that paradoxical a>b>c>a in the Condorcet voting, my favourite of which is the Schulze method. It mathematically finds the candidate that would make people the most happy, even in a case of a circle as mentioned. Its downfall is that it's more prone to draws than most other voting methods, but these are still quite rare.

The real issue is that voting systems reflect the mythology that decisions should be based on power instead of looking at the issue of how to solve problems. The Mars example used is a classic example of avoiding that problem-solving. If all the residents had an opportunity to elect representatives where the focus is on problem-solving and NOT power, you would more likely get a fifth solution.

I thought the Condorcet winner was whoever would win in every pairwise matchup, no just who’d win more pairwise matchups, and because of this, not every election would have a Condorcet winner, even with an election method that’s designed to find a Condorcet winner.

@jamesc3505

3 жыл бұрын

Yes, I think you're right. What they called "Condorcet" here wasn't actually pure Condorcet, but rather Copeland's method, I think, which is Condorcet plus a way of resolving cycles. Which also means it's wrong when they say this approach may result in cycles.

Because all voting systems will likely have a flaw, the question then is “which is the most fair way to pick someone or something?” We can all agree that minority rule is unfair (which is when you win with less than 50%). But instant runoff is probably the antidote for this because based on preference there will always be someone that gets a majority of support. In US elections this is how you can help ensure that whoever is elected has a majority of support. ME already does it and it works.

@10gamer64

3 жыл бұрын

The US system sucks

@maten146

3 жыл бұрын

The best system is actually the Condorcet system because the winner win against each other candidates

@dmitrizaslavski8480

3 жыл бұрын

@@maten146 too complicated, so for not engaged people it will be the same as plurality.

@dmitrizaslavski8480

3 жыл бұрын

@@10gamer64 depends what you name as justice. US is like a union of 51 countries, so having 51 elections in each country and select 1 liked in the most countries is reasonable from this side.

@maten146

3 жыл бұрын

@@dmitrizaslavski8480 Why would it be too complicated? Not at all, and I d'ont see why it would be for not engaged people the same as plurality, they will be able to choose whomever they want

Your videos are worth watching! Thank you Ted-ed for teaching me!

Just take the rankings from 1:22 and assign points for each vote. For example: 5 points for someone's first choice, 3 for their second, 1 for their third, and 0 for last. Doing this results in North winning, South finishing 2nd, West finishing 3rd, and East finishing last. Almost all reasonable point values (eg. 3 for 1st, 2 for 2nd, 1 for 3rd, 0 for 4th) end in the same result. I was only able to get a different winner once I made 1st place votes worth 4x the point total of 2nd place votes, which would obviously be absurd.

@tomandnic77

4 жыл бұрын

That system is called Borda Count, and its main failure is that it can be gamed through candidate cloning. For example, in a multi-ideology race, the one that runs the most candidates will likely win.

@jojo_125

Жыл бұрын

@@tomandnic77 But why does the one who runs more candidates have a higher probability to win??

@TheModeler99

Жыл бұрын

@@tomandnic77 number of candidates per party can be capped

Man the sound effects in this one are simply gold

2:55 IM LOOKING AT YOU BRIAN KEMP

SINGLE TRANSFERABLE VOTE -

For those who are interested about the mathematical proof mentioned at 4:41, look up Kenneth Arrow’s impossibility theorem

Great video

~Crewmate~ There are 0 *good voting systems* among us

Spoilers: it's not first past the post

The one with (1) the most aggressive Identification checks and (2) the most meticulously kept and updated registered voter rolls.

This animation is super well made and so satisfying to watch. I love this channel!!

I love watching TED-Ed animated videos!

Instant run off works best with Multi seat, also in your example everyone at S sets E as a second preference, when the distance would suggest that 40-50%% would align with N as a second pref, keeping it in second place and placing the space port centrally.

When they talk about instant runoff voting/ ranked choice voting they assume that everyone picks a 2nd or more candidates. This is especially important when talking about political elections. I wonder if that would make it more fair.

One of the best videos I've seen on this topic,good job TED-Ed

Love your vids keep up the good work! You have inspired many me and many others to start their own channels.

In the instant runoff scenario, if you add the votes up like points, awarding no points to the least favorable position and three points to the most favourable position, two points to the second most favorable, and 1 point to the third most favorable (per voter) the North base comes out on top.

@blitz2092

Жыл бұрын

The system youre thinking of is borda count

Better solution: we just take west base and just push it towards the other bases. Then do plurality and it should be in the middle of the towns

Ted-Ed is coming out with all of these relevant videos! Keep it up!

Raise your hand if you want to go to Mars! *No one does anything.* Raise your hand if you want to go on the moon! *Still, everybody isn’t raising their hand.* Raise your hand if you want to go to Jupiter! *Pure silence..* _Okay, we’re sending everybody to the sun..._

I like ranking and the weighting votes. So for this example, each colonist’s first choice would receive 4 points, second 3 points, third 2 points, and first 1 point. You add up each choice’s total points, then the highest is the winner. So: West= (42*4) + (15*1) + (26*1) + (17*1) = 226 East= 207 North= 294 South= 273 So North would win, which makes sense because it is the most central to all the colonies. It’s not a perfect system, but it seems better than the electoral college at least.

Nice explanation of Arrow's impossibility theorem! In Kenneth Arrow's words, "Most systems are not going to work badly all of the time. All I proved is that all can work badly at times."

@tomandnic77

4 жыл бұрын

Also in Kenneth Arrow's words from a 2012 podcast: "Well, I’m a little inclined to think that score systems where you categorize in maybe three or four classes probably (in spite of what I said about manipulation) is probably the best."

Who else need them to make a vedio on WHICH IS THE BEST WAY TO GET POLITICIANS ELECTED BALLOT EVM AND OTHER METHODS

@snehalmishra7549

3 жыл бұрын

They don't waste their time on foolish conspiracy theories 😂😂 They will prefer making a video on whether Earth is flat or globe rather than this non sense 🤣🤣

Which voting system is the best The one where leader elects himself

@americanmapper2445

4 жыл бұрын

@Teringventje it was a joke

For Condorcet, if you do get a loop like that, there are ways of resolving it, either baked into the system, or using a secondary system to pick from that loop (known as the Smith set). What you can also consider is what kind of tendencies a voting system has. FPTP, especially if it is a regularly held vote with the same or similar candidates, such as typical elections, has a tendency to result in effectively a two-party system because it creates situations in which only two parties/candidates have a reasonable chance to win. Instant Runoff has a tendency of the centre-squeeze, that is, centrists often receive fewer first place votes and are squeezed out, and split over the more extreme candidates, even though most would probably consider them a reasonable option (albeit not necessarily their favourite) and prefer it over the other extreme. Condorcet has kind of the opposite effect, and is more likely to elect moderates who may not be many people's first choice, but who are deemed reasonable by most, and preferable by a (varying) majority to every other candidate. Two round systems can kind of go either way depending on how people (tactically) vote: if a centrist and an extremist go to the second round, the centrist usually wins by getting the votes from the other end's extreme (unless there is something going on where people prefer any anti-establishment extremist over an establishment centrist), whilst if two extremists go to the 2nd round, then the centrists are squeezed out and forced to pick one of the extremes. For picking something like a president, having a more centrist uniting factor may be preferable, and thus Condorcet would be preferable, but for picking local representatives for a national level (e.g. UK constituencies), it may be less ideal as it would cause mainly centrists to end up representing the population, rather than being more representative of the varying views in the country (but then again, electing local representatives for a national level is generally bad at being representative of the differing views that exist within society; you need something more proportional for that).

You got it wrong. Not everyone from the 4 choices votes for themselves nor the second or 3rd choices predictably. Preferential voting works.

4:41 very interesting. Are there any sources online where I can see how they proved it? :) Great topic with not too much info available online, so I am very happy it got posted :D I would love to see more about that and related stuff!

@Languste

4 жыл бұрын

Lol I am surprised that my first attempt, searching for "prove that votes with more than two cannot be fair", immidiately got me to the wiki page about "Arrow's impossibility theorem" that states exactly the statement they mentioned in the video. I remember when I looked up things about this topic some years ago I did not find much; and now this is exactly the stuff I wanted to find! :D

@syedhusnainshah3055

4 жыл бұрын

Bro check out CGP grey channel he has Videos on his channel about voting system going into depth.... even how can system be systematically manipulated

@PedroKrick

4 жыл бұрын

Look up the videos about Arrow's theorem on the Infinite Series channel, they explain pretty well its proof (sometimes wikipedia can be way too deep and technical in math stuff)

Instant runoff works pretty well because usually there are 2 viable options that get the majority of the votes, so every single person can vote both on who they most want, as well as who they prefer out of the 2 big options(mostly the 2 major parties)

@anniekallen4472

3 жыл бұрын

But it falls apart whenever there are 3 or more viable options. That's why I prefer STAR voting.

@CTimmerman

Жыл бұрын

​@@anniekallen4472 How so and what is STAR voting? Single Transferable Vote / Instant Runoff Voting is simply a ranked list of approved parties.

@anniekallen4472

Жыл бұрын

Equal Vote Coalition has a KZread video called "How Does STAR Voting Work?" which walks through the basics of STAR Voting. From the voter perspective, it feels very similar to ranked choice voting, but the tabulation does a better job at picking a winner that represents the will of the overall electorate.

@danejohannescaldwell7999

8 ай бұрын

Instant runoff guards well against the spoiler effect, e.g. a third party candidate coming in from the fringes and stealing votes from a more moderate candidate. They will typically get eliminated first, and their votes redistributed as if they had never run. However, it doesn't guard well at all against a centrist candidate being squeezed from either side. Centrists will also be quick to depart the race. In the end, you still have the same two-party system that Plurality incentivizes.

I think Instant Runoff still works. Yes, a large number didn't have the winning option at the top, but the large majority didn't have it last. Psychologically it works because it still was in most people's choice and that's democracy, right?

Very informative

Approval or STAR voting has been shown to be the most optimal system at maintaining the voters' preference and eliminate the need to vote against your favorite pick.

"Democracy is so overrated." Frank Underwood

@angrybirdo

4 жыл бұрын

Erdogan supporter spotted

@aria7083

4 жыл бұрын

@@angrybirdo lol true, Islamism ruined Turkey

@bananesalee7086

4 жыл бұрын

i agree, it only stays because of the social stigma of other methods. but in reality it's very unefficient and not always fair

@angrybirdo

4 жыл бұрын

Alex it stays because it’s still the most efficient and fair of any other known system

@TheCowardRobertFord

4 жыл бұрын

"The age of consent is so overrated" Kevin Spacey.

I'm not sure if this system also exists, but a voting system that seems alright to me would be using the ranking that we saw for the "Instant runoff voting" system, but instead of counting the votes in the way that was shown, instead, each voter's first place vote would be worth 4 points, their second-place vote would be worth 3 points, third-place would be worth 2 points and last place would be worth 1. Then, we would add up all the points for each place. If this method is used, then East actually ends up with the least amount of points and North ends up with the most points.

@stirlingblackwood

10 ай бұрын

STAR (score then automatic runoff) voting is essentially what you described mixed with Condorcet voting, and generally produces the least disliked result.

@ser55555

10 ай бұрын

@@stirlingblackwood Oh, that's great to know! Thanks for informing me. Do you have the source that shows that it generally produces the least disliked result? I've love to read it.

Now how do we vote on which system to use?

Whole world : CORONA VIRUS ! CORONA! CORONA! Ted ed : Which voting system is the best?

@fish4225

4 жыл бұрын

They already made a video about the virus.

@tungstendioxide3055

4 жыл бұрын

From what I see from riots I can say US needs a new president. Which happens with voting.

KZread: Video was posted 1 minute ago Comments: Posted seven minutes ago Me: ???

@jameshendrickx9322

4 жыл бұрын

this format became unfunny in 2017

The thing about IRV aka ranked choice is that not everyone who votes for the same first choice will have the same second choice. Also you should list examples where these voting systems are used and any notable examples of them being gamed or manipulated.

As a Tasmanian Hare-Clark with the Robison Rotation is the best voting system. So multi member districts (7 members per district is ideal) using ranked choice (so rank the options then last place gets eliminated) and then for the ballot it's self rotate around each party's place on the ballot and also rotate each candidates position in their party's list of candidates. This was everyone has a say you still have a local member and internal party politics doesn't affect candidate placement.

Nine seconds ago?? Ok this is my chance....hi

@joose4650

4 жыл бұрын

Hi

@lautaroaguerowagner4386

4 жыл бұрын

Hi

@minimontessori7166

4 жыл бұрын

hi

@dudeguy7988

4 жыл бұрын

Hi

@daudanugerah7597

4 жыл бұрын

Hi