A ballot measure that would repeal Alaska’s ranked choice voting and open primary system has very narrowly failed, according to final unofficial results released Wednesday by the Division of Elections.
The final margin for Ballot Measure 2, pending certification, is 664 out of 340,110 votes, with “No” outpacing “Yes” 50.1% to 49.9%.
I haven’t looked too deep into all the options, but from my view they all have advantages and disadvantages. At the very least RCV is better than what most places in the US. Riding the wave of popularity might be the only way to get things changed too.
RCV is definitely better than FPTP, but basically everything is. From what I’ve seen, the only thing mathematically worse than what we have now would be a random pick.
I strongly prefer Approval because ranked voting systems in general tend to have glitches. Unranked ones still suffer from issues due to strategic voting, but no moreso than their ranked counterparts. From there I prefer Approval to Score and others simply because Approval is easy to explain (“vote for as many as you want instead of just one” — there you go, one sentence!) and thus easier to sell to people who don’t understand it.
Still though, there’s a lot of options for sure. If you’re interested in learning more, there’s a couple of interactive articles about voting systems I came across (one while writing this comment); this first one by Nicky Case is a great starter, and this followup by Jameson Quinn gives a bit more detail for some stuff, particularly about strategic voting.
It’s been a while, but doesn’t approval carry a very heavy risk of ‘unfavorable’ outcomes where a less popular candidate wins if everyone votes normally? I remember it seemed to reinforce two candidate contests and encourage simply voting exactly like we do now (with the similar outcomes).
-Reading into it more, that happens because if you vote for your second favorite, they may beat out your favorite, but if you do not vote for any but your preferred, you won’t risk spoiling your own vote. This of course can lead to neither winning and a third candidate nobody wanted winning, similar to first past the post.
I think that RCV, being fairly widely used now, seems like a pretty good alternative to first past the post, and while it’s not perfect, doesn’t have those obvious strategic voting issues that Approval has. I’d still take approval over first past the post. Might even take a dice roll over first past the post honestly.
Edit - for disclosure, I’m also iffy on approval voting because it’s constantly referred to in a way that makes it sound like it’s a kind of panacea, paired with a list of why x other voting method doesn’t work. It’s also being pushed by conservative groups all over the US, which raises my defenses for better or worse.
Thank you for sharing these links. I was a proponent of IRV, but it’s clear to me now that it doesn’t offer a significant improvement over FPTP. Quinn’s 3-2-1 scoring method is a lot more attractive to me now.
Thanks for the info. I had read the Nicky Case summary previously but not the Jason Quinn one. I’ll check it out after work today, but from how I read it Nicky’s conclusion is we need to try thing is real world scenarios. Honestly I am down for any alternatives, and agree that approval would be better than RCV. I think there is a situation where you can pass some kind of election reform like RCV, see if it works, then either vote for a new method or keep it based on the real world info. Well, I see that situation as previously possible. I’m really not sure what the next 4 years will bring, but I do know what they’ve said they want to do, so…
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: !politics@beehaw.org
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it’s a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
I haven’t looked too deep into all the options, but from my view they all have advantages and disadvantages. At the very least RCV is better than what most places in the US. Riding the wave of popularity might be the only way to get things changed too.
RCV is definitely better than FPTP, but basically everything is. From what I’ve seen, the only thing mathematically worse than what we have now would be a random pick.
I strongly prefer Approval because ranked voting systems in general tend to have glitches. Unranked ones still suffer from issues due to strategic voting, but no moreso than their ranked counterparts. From there I prefer Approval to Score and others simply because Approval is easy to explain (“vote for as many as you want instead of just one” — there you go, one sentence!) and thus easier to sell to people who don’t understand it.
Still though, there’s a lot of options for sure. If you’re interested in learning more, there’s a couple of interactive articles about voting systems I came across (one while writing this comment); this first one by Nicky Case is a great starter, and this followup by Jameson Quinn gives a bit more detail for some stuff, particularly about strategic voting.
It’s been a while, but doesn’t approval carry a very heavy risk of ‘unfavorable’ outcomes where a less popular candidate wins if everyone votes normally? I remember it seemed to reinforce two candidate contests and encourage simply voting exactly like we do now (with the similar outcomes).
-Reading into it more, that happens because if you vote for your second favorite, they may beat out your favorite, but if you do not vote for any but your preferred, you won’t risk spoiling your own vote. This of course can lead to neither winning and a third candidate nobody wanted winning, similar to first past the post.
I think that RCV, being fairly widely used now, seems like a pretty good alternative to first past the post, and while it’s not perfect, doesn’t have those obvious strategic voting issues that Approval has. I’d still take approval over first past the post. Might even take a dice roll over first past the post honestly.
Edit - for disclosure, I’m also iffy on approval voting because it’s constantly referred to in a way that makes it sound like it’s a kind of panacea, paired with a list of why x other voting method doesn’t work. It’s also being pushed by conservative groups all over the US, which raises my defenses for better or worse.
Thank you for sharing these links. I was a proponent of IRV, but it’s clear to me now that it doesn’t offer a significant improvement over FPTP. Quinn’s 3-2-1 scoring method is a lot more attractive to me now.
Thanks for the info. I had read the Nicky Case summary previously but not the Jason Quinn one. I’ll check it out after work today, but from how I read it Nicky’s conclusion is we need to try thing is real world scenarios. Honestly I am down for any alternatives, and agree that approval would be better than RCV. I think there is a situation where you can pass some kind of election reform like RCV, see if it works, then either vote for a new method or keep it based on the real world info. Well, I see that situation as previously possible. I’m really not sure what the next 4 years will bring, but I do know what they’ve said they want to do, so…