Which voting system is the best? - Alex Gendler

I think Instant Runoff still works. Yes, a large number didn't have the winning option at the top, but the large majority didn't have it last.
Psychologically it works because it still was in most people's choice and that's democracy, right?

Wait I don’t get it.
When you give the example of voting for candidates A,B and C
And you state you like A more then B, and B more then C.
Isn’t that obvious that you like A more than C? But you state that if you like C more then A the system collapses… but it’s contradictory….
Im confused

Œ

What’s your opinion on S.T.A.R. Voting?

I think we should vote on which voting system is the best.

Fingerprint only. Then you got a definite system of voting.

The way of counting matters, but not the way of voting.

Rvc w surplus

This was a good introductory video. Unfortunately, the perhaps unintended takeaway from it is that no system is perfect so why bother changing? And that's as far from the truth as you can get. While it's true that there is no perfect system, there is a world of difference between them, and for some, the deficiency is simply a theoretical ideal.

Plurality is by far the worst possible system in every metric other than simplicity.

Instant runoff works well against the outside spoiler effect, and is largely clone-proof, but tends to squeeze out the central, compromise candidates.

Condorcet is the mathematically most accurate system when voters are sincere, and its occasional tendency to not select a winner can easily be overcome with a tie-breaker method. Nevertheless it is highly susceptible to tactical voting by insincere voters, and quickly becomes unwieldy as you add candidates.

Of all of them, STAR voting seems to be far and away the most resilient to tactical voting, clones, and spoilers, while balancing simplicity with reliability. I would recommend any student of political science to give it serious consideration.

STAR voting!

I'm looking for multi party multi seat election system (say, 40(!) parties (about 15 realistic) and 120 seats (Israel...)) - can you help?

So basically what if voting system was like this? Remember multiple choices test with negative points? Imagine you got to choose 10 parties. You have 20 points of voting. You can choose yes and no to every party. The worst scenario is anarchy and the best scenario is monarchy. Would you vote or riot? Let’s be honest 0 would be an utopian scenario.

If you vote, you have no right to complain! You are the one who keeps electing these morons!

The electoral college is only contentious because Americans are being "American". You were meant to be Californians, Texans, Iowain etc. Your loyalty and patriotism to your state supersedes the confederation. Your states and her affairs matter more than the federal nation as a whole. You are not supposed to be concerned about people outside of your state in most cases. The idea of the US was to create a mini-Europe with smaller NATIONS. Your state is your national identity...not "American".

With the instant-runoff method, North can improve their position by choosing South as their first preference. This way, North gets 0 votes, South gets 41 votes, and East gets 17. East is eliminated, and their votes go to South. South wins with 58 votes, which is a more desirable outcome for North than East winning. So it's better for people in North base to not choose their favorite - not great.

Easy, don’t even need to watch the video (preferential voting every vote count!)

And if you have two houses

The upper house should be proportional representation!!!!!

Taxpayer voting system, if you want to vote, you have to show your filed taxes. screw ID, we demand Tax documents.

Universal ballots : An EASY way to commit fraud with no chain of custody, almost no security measures, and parties that have voter registration information (like names and addresses). Partner that with ballot harvesting and you can elect a ham sandwich. :D

With plurality voting, if all voters were rational and strategic, West wouldn't win. West and North would obviously vote for themselves, as they have the best chance of winning. South and East, though, know they have no chance, and want West to lose, so they vote for the lesser of two evils: North. And so, West gets 42 votes while North gets 58. North wins.

Isnt ranked choice voting fair?

And finally, someone has proven that two-round does not solve the spoiler effect

Of all the options presented, I feel Star is best, but I’ll take anything over the current system

Star voting

Note that when electing parliament, Switching to STV solves most of this issues by having larger districts sending several representatives that can represent the overwhelming majority of the citizens.

Situational, only direct democracy make sense.

Multiple rounds is best, the tactical choice only reflects a way of using your vote to express your preferences, it is not gaming the system, or if it is, not in a pejorative way. It's also simple enough for everyone to understand and apply in many democracies with direct elections (as opposed to using the electoral college)

Why doesn't the Government give everyone a voters ID number if the number doesn't match then the vote doesn't count.

how about you let the individual decide where they want to go instead of basing it off of majority

Just a countinue a our election a prefared a came in a our realation a came in a grate a choose a our new german goverment a throw a away a came in a germany in a leaders in a european un leaders a im peter villanueva manalo excecutive minister differ countries in a also in a european un leaders in a goverment a also to

In your Mars scenario under Mixed Member Proportional representation (MMP), which isn't mentioned, the voting systems of both Germany & New Zealand, N, E & S would form a coalition on the basis of compromising each party's self interest for the greater interest of all 3 coalition partners N, E & S and providing a space port location central to serve all 3 party supporters interest. Proportional coalition governments are great because they are far more representative of the people and force politicians of different stripes to work together. That means a healthy and far more representative democracy.

Whatever anybody say, you have to admit that Alternative Voting is far better than First past the poll, though it is not the most efficient one.

Correct Answer? Communist Dictatorship

Watching this from Russia is quite ironic.

Better solution: we just take west base and just push it towards the other bases. Then do plurality and it should be in the middle of the towns

Hmm kind of... The Mars example doesn't really work when comparing with real life. Their "First past the post" could also be proportional representation and the difference between these forms of voting are extremely relevant.

Implemented in a vote like most are in the US, things would not change much. Nearly all elections in the US have 2-3 options on the ballot. Democrats will vote blue first, independent second and red third and republicans vote red first independent second and blue third. The independent gets out in round one and their votes go to red or blue, whoever they put as second. While they might sway the election if more independents lean one way or another, statistically their 2nd and 3rd choices are more likely to reflect the same cultural split as the red first and blue first voters and percentages won’t change a vast amount. The good thing about this system is that it can provide room in the election ecosystem for a potentially large increase in political parties and numbers of candidates, however I think it’d be less surprising if the 2 party system recruits a lame sacrificial 3rd party that they prop up as the only other option knowing they will be eliminated on the first round of voting.

I'd use the tw round system like France. Since no base got 50%, second round west and north. NORTH wins

Solution: simply use mathematics to decide the location that has the least total distance from the four bases. Makes for a good Ted-ed video too.

North Base forever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

As a Tasmanian Hare-Clark with the Robison Rotation is the best voting system. So multi member districts (7 members per district is ideal) using ranked choice (so rank the options then last place gets eliminated) and then for the ballot it's self rotate around each party's place on the ballot and also rotate each candidates position in their party's list of candidates. This was everyone has a say you still have a local member and internal party politics doesn't affect candidate placement.

What about The D’hondt method? That wasn't talked about. That seems like the best way to get fairness.

Democracy never existed.
In a democracy, you can't vote away other people' rights.
and secondly it is the power of the people, if you give away your power to a representative, it is no longer a democracy but a type of oligarchy.

a fair voting system would never allow voting away others rights.
and when it comes to who can vote on what, it wouldn't allow people unrelated to a subject being voted on to be able to vote.

but yea humanity is corrupt in it's core so.. we will properly never figure this out.

Doesn't matter because the people's vote doesn't matter the government has made that very clear.

Instant RunOff but every position in the rank is +1 point is the method that never failed to me

Proportional Ranked-Choice Voting seems to be the best voting system yet imo

I think Borda Count, although not perfect, would probably be the best option. Convert the rankings into points, so a first choice gets 3 points, a second choice 2 and a third choice one, and the winner is the one with the highest overall score. It therefore elects the overall most popular/least unpopular option. In this example the winner would be North, which on the map does look like the best compromise.

Admittedly two of the methods demonstrated also make North the winner in this example, but the problems with both are discussed.