IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags instant runoff voting , Ranked Choice Voting , voting issues , voting systems

Reply
Old 20th June 2016, 02:01 AM   #1
lpetrich
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 762
If the Republican primaries had used Instant Runoff Voting

That is an alternative to first-past-the-post and delayed runoffs. One ranks the candidates by preference, and the ballots are counted by removing the candidate with the fewest highest preferences and then recounting with the preferences for that candidate being absent.

Let's look at this very simplified version:
4 people vote Cruz, Christie, Trump
3 people vote Christie, Cruz, Trump
3 people vote Trump, Cruz, Christie
2 people vote Trump, Christie, Cruz

The top-preference votes are Trump 5, Cruz 4, Christie 3. Under first-past-the-post rules, Trump would win, since he got the most votes. But let's see how it works under Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), a.k.a. Alternative Voting (AV).

Remove the candidate who got the least votes: Christie. The ballots become
7 people vote Cruz, Trump
5 people vote Trump, Cruz

So Cruz wins. This is because a majority of voters find Cruz OK even if not the best.

Ranked Choice Poll of GOP Voters Yields Insights - FairVote -- FairVote's name for IRV.
Quote:
To address the plurality problem, we recently conducted a ranked choice poll in partnership with the College of William and Mary as well as Yougov, to demonstrate how ranking candidates provides voters with more meaningful choices and pollsters with more accurate information about the shape of the race. It allows us to simulate a national GOP primary using ranked choice voting (RCV).
This was early this year. It had some interesting results.

Trump got 37% of the first choices, but only 10% of the second choices and 6% of the third choices. This decline slowly continued to about 2% or 3% until the last one, where it jumped up to 22%. So Republican voters either love him or hate him.

Ted Cruz won in second choices at 20% and Ben Carson in third choices at 16%.

The page also has an instant-runoff vote count on the poll. Here is who dropped out with how much of the vote at each stage:
0. Santorum 0.93%
1. Huckabee 2.39%
2. Fiorina 3.22%
3. Christie 3.53%
4. Kasich 4.05%
5. Paul 7.50%
6. Bush 8.66%
7. Carson 12.46%
8. Rubio 25.45%
9. Trump 49.32%
Winner: Cruz 50.68%

So Ted Cruz barely wins.
lpetrich is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2016, 02:17 AM   #2
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 35,172
....which IMO is worse than Trump being the candidate.

The issue IMO isn't the method that was used by the GOP to select their candidate, it's that someone like Trump can garner as much support as he did. If his support had been 5% or 10% of the GOP then he would have gone down as an amusing Cheeto-coloured footnote in the GOP history.

Instead he managed to generate enough support and media attention to make him a viable candidate and the rest is history....
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2016, 07:58 AM   #3
The_Animus
Illuminator
 
The_Animus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,289
Instant runoff voting should be the standard for every election.
The_Animus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2016, 12:39 PM   #4
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,927
Originally Posted by The_Animus View Post
Instant runoff voting should be the standard for every election.
For what reason?
__________________
"The presidentís voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesnít exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2016, 03:22 PM   #5
The_Animus
Illuminator
 
The_Animus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,289
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
For what reason?
This video is less than 5 minutes long and does an excellent job of explaining why winner take all is problematic and instant runoff voting is better.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
The_Animus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2016, 05:48 PM   #6
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 15,141
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
....which IMO is worse than Trump being the candidate.
Maybe so, but you're not a Republican. Ted Cruz would have probably been more broadly acceptable to the GOP.

The best system would probably be range voting, which does a pretty good job satisfying preferences and reducing the effects of spoiler candidacies/gaming.
__________________
Cain: Don't be a homo.
Diablo: What's that supposed to mean?
Cain: It's a heteronormative remark meant to be taken at face-value.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2016, 04:44 AM   #7
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 27,373
Originally Posted by The_Animus View Post
This video is less than 5 minutes long and does an excellent job of explaining why winner take all is problematic and instant runoff voting is better.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
Ah, CGP Grey.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2016, 01:02 AM   #8
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 19,205
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
For what reason?
Because the IRVtards think it will give them the chance to vote for Bernie without ruining Hillary's chances, but maybe get Bernie.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

Last edited by Brainster; 22nd June 2016 at 01:05 AM.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2016, 12:14 PM   #9
The_Animus
Illuminator
 
The_Animus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,289
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Because the IRVtards think it will give them the chance to vote for Bernie without ruining Hillary's chances, but maybe get Bernie.
IRVtards eh?

Do you have an actual argument or....?
The_Animus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2016, 03:54 PM   #10
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Gundungurra
Posts: 12,436
It would appear with that method that if you voted for the candidate with the lowest number of votes then your second and subsequent preference would no longer be taken into account because your ballot gets removed. Correct? If so, you have effectively disenfranchised those voters.

Instead, why not redistribute those ballots according to their second choice, and so on if more redistribution rounds are required?

Or have I missed something in the original explanation?
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornetsí nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015

Last edited by Norman Alexander; 22nd June 2016 at 03:56 PM.
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2016, 04:03 PM   #11
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,981
Note that all 12 ballots were counted in the OP.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2016, 04:57 PM   #12
bonzombiekitty
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,838
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
It would appear with that method that if you voted for the candidate with the lowest number of votes then your second and subsequent preference would no longer be taken into account because your ballot gets removed. Correct? If so, you have effectively disenfranchised those voters.

Instead, why not redistribute those ballots according to their second choice, and so on if more redistribution rounds are required?

Or have I missed something in the original explanation?
In the OP, they were redistributed. In the first round, nobody had a majority of votes. So the lowest performer (Christie) was eliminated, and whoever voted for him then had their #2 vote used. In the case of the op, all the Christie voters had Cruz as their second option. So for irv, Cruz wins 7 to 5 whereas in fptp, Trump wins 5-4-3
bonzombiekitty is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2016, 05:10 PM   #13
bonzombiekitty
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,838
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
For what reason?
Because it lets you vote for a candidate without having to worry about it essentially being a vote for the candidate you hate. Consider the 2000 election. You think Nader voters would have rather had Bush instead of Gore? If IRV or some other alternative vote system was in place, Nader voters could have comfortably voted for him and Gore as a second choice. So their real preference would be seen in the actual election results, but they wouldn't have essentially cast a ballot for Bush.

First past the post is a horrible way to vote. Instead of electing people the largest number of people would be ok with, you end electing people that large percentages of people HATE and even worse than that, sometime the majority of people hate the winner. If 60 percent of the population strongly agree with position A and there are two candidates that support A, then the vote can be split, meaning an anti-A candidate wins despite having minority support.
bonzombiekitty is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2016, 04:58 AM   #14
lpetrich
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 762
As a crude approximation, the recent Republican Presidential primaries were divided among supporters of Donald Trump and supporters of anyone but him. That put the "anyone but Trump" camp in a disadvantage, because that camp was rather badly split.


I'll now calculate something called a "Condorcet matrix", a matrix of which candidate beats which other, as calculated from the preferences. A sort of virtual round robin.

Rows: winner, columns: losers
Order in rows and columns: Christie, Cruz, Trump
0 5 7
7 0 7
5 5 0

Cruz > Christie
Cruz > Trump
Trump > Christie
Since Cruz beats all the others in this toy election, he is thus the winner according to the Condorcet criterionWP. So IRV and Condorcet agree here. The two also agree that Christie lost the biggest.
lpetrich is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2016, 05:44 AM   #15
lpetrich
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 762
Another algorithm: the Borda count. For n candidates, each ballot's top candidate gets n, the next one gets n-1, and so on, with the last one getting 1.

A modified version is for partially filling out a ballot: n becomes the number of candidates actually ranked, even if some were left unranked.

Trying the Borda count on my toy election, I get Christie 24, Cruz 26, and Trump 22. Though Borda agrees with IRV and Condorcet on the winner, Borda disagrees with IRV and Condorcet about the biggest loser.
lpetrich is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2016, 07:08 PM   #16
lpetrich
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 762
I checked the calculations of my previous two postings, and the Condorcet victories ought to be
Cruz > Christie
Cruz > Trump
Christie > Trump
Thus making an overall order of Cruz > Christie > Trump

However, my Borda-count calculation is correct, and both Borda and Condorcet agree on the order Cruz > Christie > Trump.
lpetrich is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2016, 07:38 PM   #17
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,468
Originally Posted by lpetrich View Post
I checked the calculations of my previous two postings, and the Condorcet victories ought to be
Cruz > Christie
Cruz > Trump
Christie > Trump
Thus making an overall order of Cruz > Christie > Trump

However, my Borda-count calculation is correct, and both Borda and Condorcet agree on the order Cruz > Christie > Trump.
It really doesn't matter what the calculations show because the rules were not in place to count in that fashion. If your theoretical "even playing field" has all candidates knowing that placing second or third is going to add up to a final victory, then they handle the campaigns and expenditures differently. They didn't have that knowledge going in, so were running in this primary in a Super First Past the Post.... You win the state - in many states - you get ALL the delegates. Jeb Bush famously didn't dedicate any portion of his considerable resources to Iowa, for instance. It was never in the cards for him to do well, there. No one spent a lot of money in Texas, 'cuz it was going to go Ted Cruz. If they had a system where second place and third place carried over to their advantage, they'd have all run different campaigns.

Notwithstanding whether or not the idea might be workable as a system, making these post-dictions based on this year's race is sort of like having a basketball game played by the rules everyone knows and then adjusting the score afterwards to award points for achievements that presently do not get you points. Say 1 point for a steal and 3 points for a blocked shot. Those teams might enjoy playing such a game; they'd like to know before it starts, though, that that's what they're playing.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2016, 09:02 PM   #18
Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
 
Ladewig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 28,579
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
...like having a ... game played by the rules everyone knows and then adjusting the score afterwards to award points for achievements that presently do not get you points.
We shall call this approach Dumbledoring.

On a more serious note, while I like alternative voting systems for primaries, I am not sure they can overcome all disadvantages from have such a lopsided and irrational primary schedule. Why should Iowa and New Hampshire be major players and California be almost always left out?
__________________
I lost an avatar bet to Doghouse Reilly.
Ladewig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2016, 10:52 PM   #19
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,468
Originally Posted by Ladewig View Post
We shall call this approach Dumbledoring.

On a more serious note, while I like alternative voting systems for primaries, I am not sure they can overcome all disadvantages from have such a lopsided and irrational primary schedule. Why should Iowa and New Hampshire be major players and California be almost always left out?
I like "Dumbledoring". A lot of the Bernie Sanders supporters would go for that. "That's 3444 for House BillandHill to 1188 for Sanderbern...... And four million votes for Sanderbern for being so gosh-darn likable. Sanderbern wins the nomination."

The problem is that the states put themselves in these strange positions wanting more attention. If the parties hadn't stepped in, we'd have a spiral and a time warp, with states vying to be first to have their primary. Florida has its peak tourist season from about Dec. 19 to Jan 15. They'd probably love to fill all their hotels with reporters and campaign workers from Dec 1 to 18. The first caucus and primary, Iowa and NH respectively, are huge money-makers for their states. On direct expenses for the campaign and media buying Iowa got fifty million bucks from the Dems and GOP combined. That's a lot of money for professional politicos, newspapers, radio, tv.... and that's not including all the meals and hotels that the journalists and pundits spend.

The parties just let it happen. The Feds have nothing to say on the subject. It would probably require a constitutional amendment to get control of the situation, and I don't see the votes to do that. The parties like a system, however convoluted, they think they've figured out how to game. And when they can't game it, like the GOP, they change the rules.

The question, of course, is "Where to start?"
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2016, 02:29 PM   #20
lylfyl
Thinker
 
lylfyl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 217
I would love to find an online poll where people could vote and compare different systems for this upcoming election . e.g. vote in a FPTP "one person one vote" then an IRV, and then an approval method, etc

Use the top three candidates in each primary, and include significant third party candidates like Stein and Johnson.


If I tried to set it up myself, i would
a) screw up the math somehow
b) not have a representative sample size since my friends tend to lean the same way.

Does the JREF polling allow ranking or only picking multiple options?
__________________
lylfyl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2016, 03:10 PM   #21
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 31,062
"If" the Republican primaries had used Instant Runoff Voting

"If" is a condition CONTRARY to FACT.

"If" we used instant runoff voting.
"If" Hillary Clinton was running against someone else.
"If" Donald Trump wasn't such a moron, racist or sexist.

"If" I won the Mega Millions lottery.

"If"
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:58 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.