Most Canadians who plan on voting for the Liberal party are more motivated to stop the Conservatives from winning the election rather than endorsing the party's vision and leader, according to a new poll released on Monday.
Most Canadians who plan on voting for the Liberal party are more motivated to stop the Conservatives from winning the election rather than endorsing the party’s vision and leader, according to a new poll released on Monday.
What you’re looking for is called Score Voting. Approval is just yes-or-meh. It is the simplest form of Score, and yet, it avoids a lot of self-defeating behaviors, has less reported regret than other systems, and somehow matches Condorcet results pretty reliably.
Ranked Choice is an objectively mediocre use of ranked ballots. A candidate can be everyone’s second choice, and they’re guaranteed to lose. They’d be eliminated immediately because RCV only counts top votes. You really want a Condorcet method like Ranked Pairs.
Consider the following election:
45% of people vote Alice > Bill > Charles.
35% of people vote Charles > Bill > Alice.
20% of people vote Bill > Charles > Alice.
FPTP says Alice wins, despite 55% of people preferring anyone else. Obviously terrible. Right?
RCV eliminates Bill and says Charles wins… despite 65% of people preferring Bill.
Condorcet says Alice v. Bill goes to Bill and Bill v. Charles goes to Bill so Bill wins.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
Can there be negative votes? So that not voting matters too
Nope.
What you’re looking for is called Score Voting. Approval is just yes-or-meh. It is the simplest form of Score, and yet, it avoids a lot of self-defeating behaviors, has less reported regret than other systems, and somehow matches Condorcet results pretty reliably.
Ennnh, I feel like ranked choice would be better.
Ranked Choice is an objectively mediocre use of ranked ballots. A candidate can be everyone’s second choice, and they’re guaranteed to lose. They’d be eliminated immediately because RCV only counts top votes. You really want a Condorcet method like Ranked Pairs.
Consider the following election:
45% of people vote Alice > Bill > Charles.
35% of people vote Charles > Bill > Alice.
20% of people vote Bill > Charles > Alice.
FPTP says Alice wins, despite 55% of people preferring anyone else. Obviously terrible. Right?
RCV eliminates Bill and says Charles wins… despite 65% of people preferring Bill.
Condorcet says Alice v. Bill goes to Bill and Bill v. Charles goes to Bill so Bill wins.
As he should.