While I commend the optimism of the high schooler who wrote in support of Instant Runoff Voting, her piece is unfortunately mired in the usual IRV myths. Though our plurality voting system is inexcusably poor, IRV is the second worst of the commonly proposed alternatives. When voters are honest, IRV tends to elect extremists. But voters soon learn that IRV strategically forces them to top-rank their favorite front-runner rather than their sincere favorite candidate, making a mockery of the IRV enthusiasts' favorite slogan: "Vote your hopes, not your fears." For example, Left beats Center, but loses to Right - whereas if Leftist voters strategically top-rank Center, they get their second choice instead of their last. This strategy makes IRV, in practice, almost identical to plurality voting. It also ensures the same two-party duopoly we already have - just look at Australia, Ireland, Malta, and Fiji for proof.
A far better and simpler system is Range Voting, and its simplified form, Approval Voting. With Range Voting, voters simply score the candidates, say 0-10, and elect the candidate with the best average. Approval Voting uses normal plurality ballots, but allows voters to vote for as many candidates as they approve of. Both these methods objectively pick better winners, as measured with a scientific yardstick called "social utility efficiency". They also have the advantage of reducing spoiled ballots (whereas IRV increases them), and easing the necessary transition to 100% hand-counted paper ballots. And third parties might like the fact that these methods aren't deadly to them, like plurality and IRV are. IRV is a fake fix, that merely acts as an impediment to the implementation of real solutions to our electoral crisis. Real reformers should demand Range Voting or Approval Voting.
1 Comments:
While I commend the optimism of the high schooler who wrote in support of Instant Runoff Voting, her piece is unfortunately mired in the usual IRV myths. Though our plurality voting system is inexcusably poor, IRV is the second worst of the commonly proposed alternatives. When voters are honest, IRV tends to elect extremists. But voters soon learn that IRV strategically forces them to top-rank their favorite front-runner rather than their sincere favorite candidate, making a mockery of the IRV enthusiasts' favorite slogan: "Vote your hopes, not your fears." For example, Left beats Center, but loses to Right - whereas if Leftist voters strategically top-rank Center, they get their second choice instead of their last. This strategy makes IRV, in practice, almost identical to plurality voting. It also ensures the same two-party duopoly we already have - just look at Australia, Ireland, Malta, and Fiji for proof.
A far better and simpler system is Range Voting, and its simplified form, Approval Voting. With Range Voting, voters simply score the candidates, say 0-10, and elect the candidate with the best average. Approval Voting uses normal plurality ballots, but allows voters to vote for as many candidates as they approve of. Both these methods objectively pick better winners, as measured with a scientific yardstick called "social utility efficiency". They also have the advantage of reducing spoiled ballots (whereas IRV increases them), and easing the necessary transition to 100% hand-counted paper ballots. And third parties might like the fact that these methods aren't deadly to them, like plurality and IRV are. IRV is a fake fix, that merely acts as an impediment to the implementation of real solutions to our electoral crisis. Real reformers should demand Range Voting or Approval Voting.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home