1844: "Voting Systems"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
somitomi
Posts: 640
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2015 11:21 pm UTC
Location: can be found in Hungary
Contact:

1844: "Voting Systems"

Postby somitomi » Wed May 31, 2017 3:08 pm UTC

Image
Title text: Kenneth Arrow hated me because the ordering of my preferences changes based on which voting systems have what level of support. But it tells me a lot about the people I'm going to be voting with!

Sometimes I come to XKCD for a laugh and get homework instead...

ETA: That probably means I'm not enough of a voting nerd yet.
—◯-◯

xorsyst
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 9:28 am UTC

Re: 1844: "Voting Systems"

Postby xorsyst » Wed May 31, 2017 3:28 pm UTC

We should have a vote about which is the best voting system. Let's use approval voting for that vote.

User avatar
Old Bruce
Posts: 153
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2016 2:27 pm UTC

Re: 1844: "Voting Systems"

Postby Old Bruce » Wed May 31, 2017 3:37 pm UTC

All the words are english words but...
This reminded me of wayback when the publication Scientific American was good, each issue would have an article which would utterly baffle me. I couldn't identify the subject of the article; is it Maths or Biology, perhaps Astronomy or Geology.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3583
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1844: "Voting Systems"

Postby Soupspoon » Wed May 31, 2017 3:50 pm UTC

Old Bruce wrote:All the words are english words but...
This reminded me of wayback when the publication Scientific American was good, each issue would have an article which would utterly baffle me. I couldn't identify the subject of the article; is it Maths or Biology, perhaps Astronomy or Geology.

Ah, this would be the "How many mole-meat planets are there in our galaxy?" article, I presume.

:P

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2962
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1844: "Voting Systems"

Postby orthogon » Wed May 31, 2017 4:12 pm UTC

xorsyst wrote:We should have a vote about which is the best voting system. Let's use approval voting for that vote.

One step at a time: we should have a referendum on which of Arrow's conditions to suspend. I'd love to see a bus driving around with "Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives" emblazoned on the side, while Bob Geldof yells at Nigel Farage from riverboat flying the "Unrestricted Domain" flag, telling him where he can stick his Pareto Efficiency. Meanwhile the rightwing tabloids would be getting in a lather about Non-Imposition and the loss of Citizen Sovereignty.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

drumking66
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:45 pm UTC

Re: 1844: "Voting Systems"

Postby drumking66 » Wed May 31, 2017 4:48 pm UTC

Obligatory plug for fairvote.org. If you live in any of these states and want to support RCV/IRV, call your rep and tell them to support the bill: http://www.fairvote.org/new_ranked_choi ... ice_voting.

User avatar
Qaanol
The Cheshirest Catamount
Posts: 3058
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

Re: 1844: "Voting Systems"

Postby Qaanol » Wed May 31, 2017 5:15 pm UTC

Cueball knows what’s up, approval voting is *way* better than IRV, and Condorcet methods are generally better as well.

There’s a new method being proposed in Oregon called “star voting” (aka. score-runoff) where you rate each candidate on a 0–5 scale (like website reviews) and the 2 highest-scoring candidates become the finalists. Then, using the same ballots already cast, you elect whichever of the finalists was scored higher by more voters.

The idea behind star voting is to completely avoid Arrow’s theorem since you don’t rank the candidates (you rate them just like score voting), and the runoff step makes it so voters have a reason to use intermediate levels rather than just the top and bottom so you get a more accurate picture of what people actually think.
wee free kings

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6238
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 1844: "Voting Systems"

Postby Thesh » Wed May 31, 2017 5:26 pm UTC

The best system is called Thesh voting; the methodology is secret but it always selects the best choice, which means it also guarantees that Donald Trump never wins.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1844: "Voting Systems"

Postby Copper Bezel » Wed May 31, 2017 6:41 pm UTC

Qaanol wrote:Cueball knows what’s up, approval voting is *way* better than IRV, and Condorcet methods are generally better as well.

There’s a new method being proposed in Oregon called “star voting” (aka. score-runoff) where you rate each candidate on a 0–5 scale (like website reviews) and the 2 highest-scoring candidates become the finalists. Then, using the same ballots already cast, you elect whichever of the finalists was scored higher by more voters.

The idea behind star voting is to completely avoid Arrow’s theorem since you don’t rank the candidates (you rate them just like score voting), and the runoff step makes it so voters have a reason to use intermediate levels rather than just the top and bottom so you get a more accurate picture of what people actually think.

People are likely to rank their preferences anyway. I mean, submitting a middling score on someone necessarily means having less impact on that person's chances than giving a 0 or a 5, right? Voters tend to have their preferences decided and want to vote strategically to the advantage of the candidates they prefer and the disadvantage of alternatives. Ranking means that you only have X stars to go around on your ballot and have to budget them out.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

User avatar
drachefly
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:25 pm UTC

Re: 1844: "Voting Systems"

Postby drachefly » Wed May 31, 2017 7:21 pm UTC

This comic describes my position very well. IRV is weak and unstable compared to Condorcet systems, and Approval is quite good. I also like Star Voting, described above… pending analysis.

Copper Bezel wrote:Ranking means that you only have X stars to go around on your ballot and have to budget them out.


Not quite sure what you mean, here. Especially under Condorcet systems, which go very far to making every pairwise race as independent as possible.

User avatar
somitomi
Posts: 640
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2015 11:21 pm UTC
Location: can be found in Hungary
Contact:

Re: 1844: "Voting Systems"

Postby somitomi » Wed May 31, 2017 7:27 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:The best system is called Thesh voting; the methodology is secret but it always selects the best choice, which means it also guarantees that Donald Trump never wins.

I like this system, could you come here for the 2018 elections?
—◯-◯

User avatar
Qaanol
The Cheshirest Catamount
Posts: 3058
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

Re: 1844: "Voting Systems"

Postby Qaanol » Wed May 31, 2017 7:36 pm UTC

Copper Bezel wrote:I mean, submitting a middling score on someone necessarily means having less impact on that person's chances than giving a 0 or a 5, right? Voters tend to have their preferences decided and want to vote strategically to the advantage of the candidates they prefer and the disadvantage of alternatives.

It is mathematically proven that the optimal strategy in score voting is to min-max with threshold equal to your expected value (utility) for the election. In other words, take the average of how much you like each candidate, weighted by how likely they are to win, and give everyone you like better than that the maximum score and everyone you like worse than that the minimum score.

The innovation of star voting is that the runoff step gives voters an incentive to spread their ratings out across the range, which means the resulting score totals should be a more honest reflection of voter opinions.

Copper Bezel wrote:Ranking means that you only have X stars to go around on your ballot and have to budget them out.

No, that would be “allocating”.

Ranking means you list the candidates from favorite to least favorite, so the information provided by each voter is an ordering of the candidates. Generally, ranked ballots do not allow ties and they do not allow you to skip ranks, although they do usually allow you to give a partial ranking where you only list your favorite n candidates and then stop.

Rating, on the other hand, means you give each candidate a score (from some range of possible scores). You can give the same score to multiple candidates, you can leave some scores unused, and essentially each candidate is treated as a separate question, “How do you rate this candidate?”

Arrow’s theorem (and the related G-S theorem) only apply the ranked voting methods, not to rated ones.
wee free kings

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1844: "Voting Systems"

Postby Copper Bezel » Wed May 31, 2017 7:47 pm UTC

Qaanol wrote:The innovation of star voting is that the runoff step gives voters an incentive to spread their ratings out across the range, which means the resulting score totals should be a more honest reflection of voter opinions.

Ah, gotcha. I know very little about voting systems, but that sounded broken to me. This makes sense, though.

Qaanol wrote:
Copper Bezel wrote:Ranking means that you only have X stars to go around on your ballot and have to budget them out.

No, that would be “allocating”.

Yeah, raking obviously has the extra restrictions imposed and I shouldn't have conflated them; allocation is only one of the restrictions imposed by ranking and probably not inherently useful, since a scoring system with allocation but no runoff would still result in the maximum available scores for preferred candidates and nothing for unpreferred ones, just less representatively in terms of where the cutoff falls on the individual ballot.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4890
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1844: "Voting Systems"

Postby Pfhorrest » Wed May 31, 2017 8:22 pm UTC

Can someone explain further why it's strategically advantageous to give all candidates either maximum or minimum score in (non-runoff) score voting? E.g. if I were to score some of the candidates (and primary candidates) from the last US presidential election from 0-5, my first thought would be something like:

5 for Sanders
4 or 5 for Stein
3 for Clinton
2 or 3 for most other Democrats
2 for Johnson
1 or 2 for Paul
1 for most other Republicans
0 for Trump

If it were approval voting and I was giving either a 0 or a 1 I feel like the line would be drawn somewhere around Johnson (not sure which side of the line he would be on). It sounds like people here are saying that strategically, I should give everyone above that line 5 and everyone below it 0, but I don't see why; it's still better for me if e.g. Paul wins instead of Trump, or Sanders instead of Clinton, so why is it to my advantage to lump them all together at the far ends of the range?
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

arbiteroftruth
Posts: 439
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 3:44 am UTC

Re: 1844: "Voting Systems"

Postby arbiteroftruth » Wed May 31, 2017 8:46 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:If it were approval voting and I was giving either a 0 or a 1 I feel like the line would be drawn somewhere around Johnson (not sure which side of the line he would be on). It sounds like people here are saying that strategically, I should give everyone above that line 5 and everyone below it 0, but I don't see why; it's still better for me if e.g. Paul wins instead of Trump, or Sanders instead of Clinton, so why is it to my advantage to lump them all together at the far ends of the range?


Giving Paul an extra star compared to Trump helps you in the event that the election comes down to Paul v Trump, but hurts you in the event that the election comes down to Paul v anyone-you-like-more-than-Paul. When you try to balance those concerns for any given candidate, it works out that either it's always either a net benefit to keep giving that candidate more and more stars, or it's always a net benefit to take more and more stars away.

Mikeski
Posts: 1034
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: 1844: "Voting Systems"

Postby Mikeski » Wed May 31, 2017 10:20 pm UTC

But how many stars is the optimal maximum score for a voting system?

I give 5 stars 4 stars.
I give 4 stars 5 stars.
I give 3 stars 3 stars.
I give 7 and 10 stars each 2 stars.
And I give 100 stars pi stars.

User avatar
Flumble
Yes Man
Posts: 2051
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:35 pm UTC

Re: 1844: "Voting Systems"

Postby Flumble » Wed May 31, 2017 10:29 pm UTC

There are about 10^12 stars in our galaxy, so if we want to be prepared for a galactic federation, we need to be accustomed to voting with 10^12 stars.

Mikeski
Posts: 1034
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: 1844: "Voting Systems"

Postby Mikeski » Thu Jun 01, 2017 3:06 am UTC

Flumble wrote:There are about 10^12 stars in our galaxy, so if we want to be prepared for a galactic federation, we need to be accustomed to voting with 10^12 stars.

As though those damn one-percenters around the 10^10 best stars will let us have any say in things...

niauropsaka
Posts: 85
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2013 8:50 pm UTC

I hate psephological theory.

Postby niauropsaka » Thu Jun 01, 2017 3:30 am UTC

Just use proportional closed-list with the list orders chosen by sortition, then.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6238
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 1844: "Voting Systems"

Postby Thesh » Thu Jun 01, 2017 4:11 am UTC

The only ranked voting system that makes sense is to do a pairwise comparison between each candidate and then rank the candidates first by the number of pairwise victories, then by the Schulze-ranking using the absolute votes rather than margins, followed by who has the biggest hands, followed by the aggregate sum of votes they received in pairwise competitions they won, followed by the sum of the margins of their losses and victories for all pairwise competitions (with a negative margin for loss, and positive for victory), followed by the result of converting the letters in their full name to the numbers representing that character's position in the alphabet and then taking the sum modulo 42.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4890
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1844: "Voting Systems"

Postby Pfhorrest » Thu Jun 01, 2017 4:22 am UTC

This comic got me lost on Wikipedia reading about voting systems again, and I find myself wondering if anyone has ever come up with and named an idea I've rolled around in my head for a while now.

The idea is that every individual gets a vote on each decision made by an office, like in a direct democracy, but that each vote is delegable: any individual can say "this guy votes for me too" (and formally register that delegation somewhere of course), and then when that guy votes in the legislative body of the office in question, he votes with the power of two people. But that guy, in turn, can delegate his votes -- his own and all those delegated to him -- to someone else instead, who then can vote with the power of all those votes. But he can also delegate them all to someone else, etc. In the end you have a final legislative body of variable size, depending on how actively the electorate want to participate in decision-making and how divided they are, making the decisions of the office in question.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
MarkGyver
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 6:56 am UTC

Re: 1844: "Voting Systems"

Postby MarkGyver » Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:30 am UTC

I'm just going to attempt naming of a couple concepts people have posted about here, and what they devolve into.

Qaanol wrote:There’s a new method being proposed in Oregon called “star voting” (aka. score-runoff) where you rate each candidate on a 0–5 scale (like website reviews) and the 2 highest-scoring candidates become the finalists. Then, using the same ballots already cast, you elect whichever of the finalists was scored higher by more voters.

The idea behind star voting is to completely avoid Arrow’s theorem since you don’t rank the candidates (you rate them just like score voting), and the runoff step makes it so voters have a reason to use intermediate levels rather than just the top and bottom so you get a more accurate picture of what people actually think.


Star voting seems to be a marketing term for range voting (which strategically devolves to approval voting), followed by a runoff where the top candidate of the top two wins. I think this devolves into approval voting, perhaps with a bias favoring the most polarizing candidate.

Pfhorrest wrote:every individual gets a vote on each decision made by an office, like in a direct democracy, but that each vote is delegable


That's called delegative democracy (or liquid democracy, as I knew it before looking it up to be sure of the name). This devolves into deciding how much time to spend deciding, which last I checked is a very open problem in decision theory.
Generation 0: The first time you see this, copy it into your signature and change it so that it looks like you inspired this signature. Social experiment.

User avatar
drachefly
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:25 pm UTC

Re: 1844: "Voting Systems"

Postby drachefly » Thu Jun 01, 2017 2:26 pm UTC

MarkGyver wrote:Star voting seems to be a marketing term for range voting (which strategically devolves to approval voting), followed by a runoff where the top candidate of the top two wins. I think this devolves into approval voting, perhaps with a bias favoring the most polarizing candidate.


Star Voting uses Range voting, but is not the same because of that runoff. The runoff has a very important mechanical effect which prevents it from devolving into Approval voting, through an incentive to give more candidates distinct scores from each other, which keeps it from becoming pure Approval like regular Range has a tendency to.

The NAME Star voting is a 'marketing term' no more than any other name is. Before it was called Star Voting, though, it was called 'Score-Runoff' voting.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2962
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1844: "Voting Systems"

Postby orthogon » Thu Jun 01, 2017 3:08 pm UTC

drachefly wrote:Star Voting uses Range voting, but is not the same because of that runoff. The runoff has a very important mechanical effect which prevents it from devolving into Approval voting, through an incentive to give more candidates distinct scores from each other, which keeps it from becoming pure Approval like regular Range has a tendency to.


I take it for granted that the proof mentioned by Qaanol and partially explained by arbiteroftruth is correct, but can we agree that it's quite an unintuitive result? Even the result itself isn't that easy to understand: weight the desirability of each candidate by their probability of winning, then take the average, then use that as a threshold? And given that, does it actually degenerate into Approval Voting in practice, as opposed to in a rarified electorate of perfectly rational hyperintelligent beings (oh, and with access to perfect knowledge of the probabilities)?
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
drachefly
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:25 pm UTC

Re: 1844: "Voting Systems"

Postby drachefly » Thu Jun 01, 2017 3:12 pm UTC

It's not that unintuitive, really. You can vote at half strength in two races, but in the end it's going to come down to the two candidates with the highest score, so you might as well put all your voting strength into that race, if you can identify it in advance. If you can't identify it, I think it's still best to guess rather than give an intermediate score - at least, strategically speaking.

You can put intermediate scores on candidates you're sure won't come close to winning, if they're between the two candidates you split on.

And in these races, in practice, a fair fraction of people do push to the extremes. When things get serious, they want their votes to count as hard as possible.

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 832
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1844: "Voting Systems"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Thu Jun 01, 2017 7:44 pm UTC

I like the mixed-member proportional representation system (probably with a condorcet district component) for any multi-seat councils.

For single person offices I would say a condorcet method or a single transferable vote is fine, but I would consider the most important part to be the absence of district voting for such offices.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3434
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1844: "Voting Systems"

Postby rmsgrey » Thu Jun 01, 2017 8:18 pm UTC

I still think the most honest voting system is the "one dollar, one vote" - sure, you can literally buy an election under it, but it probably costs more than doing so under the current system - and the money spent ends up in the treasury rather than in private hands...

User avatar
Eternal Density
Posts: 5547
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 12:37 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1844: "Voting Systems"

Postby Eternal Density » Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:21 pm UTC

Arrow got better with season 5, but I'm mad about the cliffhanger ending.
Play the game of Time! castle.chirpingmustard.com Hotdog Vending Supplier But what is this?
In the Marvel vs. DC film-making war, we're all winners.

User avatar
Flumble
Yes Man
Posts: 2051
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:35 pm UTC

Re: 1844: "Voting Systems"

Postby Flumble » Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:56 pm UTC

Half the time I'm reading the comic title as "Vomiting Systems".

(I felt the need to share this)

qvxb
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 10:20 pm UTC

Re: 1844: "Voting Systems"

Postby qvxb » Fri Jun 02, 2017 12:41 am UTC

Judas goats are sometimes very important. Yeah, talkin' about you Rush, Sean, et al..

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judas_goat

User avatar
Eshru
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 3:51 am UTC

Re: 1844: "Voting Systems"

Postby Eshru » Fri Jun 02, 2017 5:10 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:This comic got me lost on Wikipedia reading about voting systems again, and I find myself wondering if anyone has ever come up with and named an idea I've rolled around in my head for a while now.

The idea is that every individual gets a vote on each decision made by an office, like in a direct democracy, but that each vote is delegable: any individual can say "this guy votes for me too" (and formally register that delegation somewhere of course), and then when that guy votes in the legislative body of the office in question, he votes with the power of two people. But that guy, in turn, can delegate his votes -- his own and all those delegated to him -- to someone else instead, who then can vote with the power of all those votes. But he can also delegate them all to someone else, etc. In the end you have a final legislative body of variable size, depending on how actively the electorate want to participate in decision-making and how divided they are, making the decisions of the office in question.
This system seems as though it would be easily subverted. Either people make a living selling the votes they've collected (on the DL obviously) or some other tampering. And that doesn't even get into the (costly) nightmare of tracking this. People disappear off voting rolls (albeit probably maliciously) as it is now, or spontaneously change parties; it would instead be people transferring from one representative to another. It would cost too much to maintain imo, and would be easier to game than it already is.

User avatar
Eshru
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 3:51 am UTC

Re: 1844: "Voting Systems"

Postby Eshru » Fri Jun 02, 2017 5:14 am UTC

rmsgrey wrote:I still think the most honest voting system is the "one dollar, one vote" - sure, you can literally buy an election under it, but it probably costs more than doing so under the current system - and the money spent ends up in the treasury rather than in private hands...

A scaling, maybe logarithmic version of this I could support. The one millionth vote cast by mr Rockefeller shouldn't be worth the same as a baseline vote for someone scraping by on minimum wage making Rockefeller richer.

User avatar
jules.LT
Posts: 1539
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:20 pm UTC
Location: Paris, France, Europe

Re: 1844: "Voting Systems"

Postby jules.LT » Fri Jun 02, 2017 12:03 pm UTC

I'm rather partial to the newish Majority Judgement system, these days.

It's basically grade-voting where you take the median rather than the average grade, in order to remove the disproportionate impact of extreme grading and incentivize people to grade how they actually feel.

They also insist on using actual words like "Outstanding/Good/Fair/Poor/Bad/To Reject" instead of grades, because those express voter feelings more directly than having to turn them into figures.

The main feature I see that could be considered an issue is that if you rate two candidates high or low enough, the order in which you put them doesn't matter anymore: your vote is reduced to equal approval or disapproval for both candidates.
Bertrand Russell wrote:Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.
Richard Feynman & many others wrote:Keep an open mind – but not so open that your brain falls out

User avatar
Flumble
Yes Man
Posts: 2051
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:35 pm UTC

Re: 1844: "Voting Systems"

Postby Flumble » Fri Jun 02, 2017 12:53 pm UTC

I never thought the choice between names, stars and numbers would be part of a voting system.

Majority judgement sounds like a really simple and understandable system.
Still, it's made for deciding a single best thing. With a government, I'm rather fond of selecting multiple best things to ratio and let those multiple things sort it out (i.e. representative government with a cabinet).

internetomancer
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 4:13 pm UTC

Re: 1844: "Voting Systems"

Postby internetomancer » Fri Jun 02, 2017 4:18 pm UTC

As someone who got into Disqus arguments across multiple news comment sections with the Fair Vote guy during Maine's IRV referendum (me arguing that while I agree approval is better, IRV is better than FPTP anyway) this comic really struck home.

I seriously doubt this comic could appeal to anyone else in the world. So somehow it seems all the more special. Thanks mr. xkcd guy.

internetomancer
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 4:13 pm UTC

Re: 1844: "Voting Systems"

Postby internetomancer » Fri Jun 02, 2017 4:20 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:This comic got me lost on Wikipedia reading about voting systems again, and I find myself wondering if anyone has ever come up with and named an idea I've rolled around in my head for a while now.

The idea is that every individual gets a vote on each decision made by an office, like in a direct democracy, but that each vote is delegable: any individual can say "this guy votes for me too" (and formally register that delegation somewhere of course), and then when that guy votes in the legislative body of the office in question, he votes with the power of two people. But that guy, in turn, can delegate his votes -- his own and all those delegated to him -- to someone else instead, who then can vote with the power of all those votes. But he can also delegate them all to someone else, etc. In the end you have a final legislative body of variable size, depending on how actively the electorate want to participate in decision-making and how divided they are, making the decisions of the office in question.

It's been proposed here and there. The closest to implementation I've heard of is called Google's search engine.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26453
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1844: "Voting Systems"

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Jun 02, 2017 4:52 pm UTC

Eternal Density wrote:Arrow got better with season 5, but I'm mad about the cliffhanger ending.

Seasons should never end on cliffhangers, for reasons Sense8 most recently illustrated.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3583
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1844: "Voting Systems"

Postby Soupspoon » Fri Jun 02, 2017 9:10 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:This comic got me lost on Wikipedia reading about voting systems again, and I find myself wondering if anyone has ever come up with and named an idea I've rolled around in my head for a while now.

The idea is that every individual gets a vote on each decision made by an office, like in a direct democracy, but that each vote is delegable: any individual can say "this guy votes for me too" (and formally register that delegation somewhere of course), and then when that guy votes in the legislative body of the office in question, he votes with the power of two people. But that guy, in turn, can delegate his votes -- his own and all those delegated to him -- to someone else instead, who then can vote with the power of all those votes. But he can also delegate them all to someone else, etc. In the end you have a final legislative body of variable size, depending on how actively the electorate want to participate in decision-making and how divided they are, making the decisions of the office in question.


(Somehow missed this, and the first reply to it...)

I've had the idea, and seen it elsewhere (with it clear that neither me nor the other were cribbing from the counterpart). My method involved an optional delegation of trust, with those choosing to retain their trust-count being effectively leaders of political parties using their accumulations to calculate their representation level in government.

It would be dynamic, - if you don't like what your inheritor/inheritor's-inheritor/etc use of the vote you command is ending up pointing towards you could change things, possibly changing the whole balance if you're enough of a nexus yourself., So it needs an infrastructure to handle rapid reassignments/revocations for those bothered enough to keep abreast of things. Would also prevent or counteract accidental circularities of trust

I think the term "Dendrocracy" works for this, personally. Or possibly "Advocracy", maybe.

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1844: "Voting Systems"

Postby Copper Bezel » Fri Jun 02, 2017 11:09 pm UTC

You'd literally have a stock market for voting power, at least in terms of the rooms full of people watching complicated charts on multimonitor rigs, graphs in the newspaper, daily numbers on the radio, and people getting live-updating tracker apps for their phones. I don't really know if that's a good or bad thing, but it's a thing.

Edit: I like "advocracy", it's nicely parallel to other -ocracies, where "dendrocracy" is a little esoteric and trees can describe everything anyway.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

xtifr
Posts: 330
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 6:38 pm UTC

Re: 1844: "Voting Systems"

Postby xtifr » Fri Jun 02, 2017 11:12 pm UTC

"The perfect is the enemy of the good". As far as I'm concerned, first-past-the-post is the equivalent of a bubble-sort--simple, obvious, and almost always the worst option (aside from deliberately bad options like bogo-sort). So I'll support pretty much any alternatives. IRV and Condorcet/Schulze are the ones I've actually used, and they're both huge improvements on FPTP.

Once FPTP becomes a thing of the past, then maybe I'll start worrying about the tradeoffs between the alternatives. But at the moment, I'm strongly in favor of any half-way decent alternative. I don't care which. Anything-but-FPTP!
"[T]he author has followed the usual practice of contemporary books on graph theory, namely to use words that are similar but not identical to the terms used in other books on graph theory."
-- Donald Knuth, The Art of Computer Programming, Vol I, 3rd ed.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Sustainabilizer and 23 guests