User:Paladinwannabe2
About Me
|
.svg){kind=small}
I've started getting more involved in Wikipedia after seeing some of the edit wars going on over Approval Voting, Majority Criterion, IRV, etc. I am a mathematics major with a strong understanding of game theory, but I'm not a political science expert. (This does mean I understand the mathematics behind Arrow's Theorem and Condorcet methods, though). My favorite single winner voting methods so far are Approval Voting and IRV, because both are simple enough for the average Joe to understand. This also, I hope, makes me fairly neutral in disputes between IRV and Approval advocates, because I understand the advantages as disadvantages of both systems (If you guys haven't figured it out yet, no voting system is perfect).
Ideally, of course, there would be a simple voting system that is as good as a Condorcet method. Range voting or Approval voting may be such a system, depending on how you define 'simple' and 'good'. (Range voting, for instance, is simple for the people counting, but the most complex for the voter.) All known Condorcet methods are more complex than IRV- and if the average voter doesn't understand the underlying mathematics, how can he trust his vote?
Approximate ordering of a few systems based on 4 criteria. Ordering is based on my personal opinion, which is usually backed by evidence and/or experience.
Simplicity for voter (debated): Plurality>(IRV\Approval)>(most other ranked ballots)>Range voting
Simplicity for vote counting: Plurality>Approval>Range voting=Borda>IRV>(most other ranked ballots)
Quality of results (very hotly debated*): (Condorcet methods\Range Voting)>(IRV\Borda\Approval)>Plurality
Fewest problems with insincere voting (also hotly debated**): Approval>Condorcet>IRV>Range Voting>Borda>Plurality
If your goal is the best results, Condorcet or Range is the way to go. If your goal is good results voters can understand, Approval or IRV is the way to go. If your goal is simplest fair voting possible, Plurality is the way to go. People shouldn't be arguing about voting systems, people should be arguing about what the most important goals of voting systems are.
- For instance, some systems are more likely to elect moderates than others- whether this is a bug or a feature seems to depend on how much you like moderates.
- Range voting can be ranked very high or very low, depending on how one defines 'sincere' voting. It's stupid to vote one candidate higher than another you like more, but it's often to your advantage to rank everyone at either the highest or lowest rating- effectively voting as if it were an Approval ballot. I personally consider that insincere, your opinion may vary.