Hello all,

The way I see it, the kind of person willing to be an early-adopter is the kind of person with gumption. They’re willing to deal with uncertainty, they’re willing to stake out a claim based on principles, they’re willing to put in a little extra work where it’s needed.

Alight, maybe, maybe not.

But if that sounds like you, I want to recruit you to lead a referendum to switch Ohio or a local government in Ohio to Approval Voting.

If you haven’t heard of Approval Voting before, here it is:

  1. Vote for everyone you like.
  2. Most votes wins.

That’s it.

But OH BOY does it fix a lot of problems. Under Approval, it’s always safe to vote for your favorite candidate. With Approval, you can’t submit an invalid ballot. And best of all, Approval voting doesn’t have spoilers.

Approval Voting helps show how much support every candidate in the race actually has, since there was nothing stopping anyone from voting for them. Everyone’s final total represents their approval rating!

If this sounds like a good deal to you, let me know and we can talk about what it would take to switch your elections to approval. If you have any questions, fire away! I’m even perfectly happy to tell you what kinds of problems and limitations approval has, because all voting systems have problems and limitations!

P.S. I couldn’t find any community specific rules and I’m not sure if this counts as advertising or spam per the site rules but if it does let me know and I’ll delete the post.

P.P.S. I do actually live in Ohio, I’m not gonna go around recruiting people for projects in a state where I don’t live.

  • Bob@midwest.socialOP
    4·
    2 years ago

    Great question!

    For any non-shit voting method (damn near anything other than FPTP) the results are usually the same or comparable. This is the case for basically kind of election, be it single-winner, multi-winner, or proportional. Yes yes, there are differences, but honestly they’re kind of small.

    To make this point, compare these calculated win regions for four voting methods. Approval isn’t in that video so here’s a link of the same calculations including approval. Anyway, big differences, right? Well, in real-world polling data it seems… Eh. Not so much. You can find polling data which claims big differences, but it’s unclear how good that date is. If we take that data to be valid? Well, approval does very well.

    Okay so let’s at least just pretend that the results we get from our fancy new voting methods are all basically the same. What are the differences, then?

    Well, now it’s an administrative and user experience question. How easy is it to run your election, how easy is it to verify the results, and how easy is it for the voter to understand what’s going on?

    I think it’s worth mentioning that as far as the preceding paragraph is concerned, First Past The Post does extremely well. The only problem is that the results are total shit.

    As far as these questions go, it doesn’t get better than approval. I mean, seriously, how could you possibly mess it up? Where are you going to get confused. Vote for everyone you like, most votes wins.

    The ease of administration and understanding applies to the multi-winner and proportional methods too. The instructions are the same, vote for everyone you like. With party proportional, your ballot is divided up evenly amongst the parties you voted for. Vote for three parties, and they each receive 1/3 of a vote. You get the idea. With multi-winner, the winners are selected round-by-round. After every round, if you voted for the winner in that round, your ballot weight is reduced according to the harmonic series (1, ½, ⅓, ¼, ⅕, …). You can use any reduction list you like, but the harmonic series is a good compromise.

    Since, as the other commenter pointed out, multi-winner elections would be a better fix to our democracy, it’s important we move to a voting system that’s easy to implement and easy to understand no matter what kind of representation system we use. That’s approval voting, it’s dead simple.

    If you need convincing to recognize why simplicity is important, I think the large amounts of complaints about Mastodon/Lemmy/Kbin being too complicated is a great example. For a social network it doesn’t matter if some people are excluded because they don’t understand how it works, but for a voting system? It has to work for everyone.

    But okay, you’ve read this short essay and you’re thinking, “mmm, but I’m more concerned with the system mechanics. I’m smart enough to understand voting systems and I want one that works really well.”

    Great luck! Approval has great voting theory properties too. It passes the Sincere Favorite Criterion, meaning it’s always safe to vote for your favorite, which isn’t actually true under RCV. It fails Later No Harm, which means it discourages voting for candidates you don’t actually like (again, unlike RCV). Finally, spoilers are mathematically impossible under the Independence of irrelevant alternatives and, you guessed it, this isn’t true under RCV.

    Is anything better than FPTP? Yes, and so we should fix it right the first time, especially since we’ll ultimately plan to move to multi-winner and/or proportional elections.

    • KingStrafeIV@midwest.social
      5·
      2 years ago

      Thanks for the detailed writeup.

      I think my main concern with approval is specifically the lack of ranking, as it feels weird to essentially equally weight selections when in my preference they are definitely not equally acceptable.

      • Bob@midwest.socialOP
        3·
        2 years ago

        Yup! That’s the common complaint, and it’s also the reason it falls “later no harm.” It’s essentially a balancing act between being able to say everything you want, without encouraging voters to cast “safety votes” for candidates they don’t like at all.

        You can get around this problem by going to Score or Star but now you’re adding complexity for not very much gain, if any. Both are looked at, here, which I think I already shared but I’m just pointing to it again. Since even the most disinterested person needs to be able to understand the voting system, I think the extra complexity isn’t worth the extra expression.

        The biggest need for everyone to understand the voting system is not so that they, as individuals, know what they’re doing, but so that candidates can’t claim the system was rigged somehow. Yes, bad actors will make that claim anyway, but if the system is too complex for some people to understand, that argument becomes a lot more persuasive.

        “It’s rigged!”

        That voting system is so complicated even i don’t understand it, it really could be rigged!