503
submitted 9 months ago by mwguy@infosec.pub to c/politics@lemmy.world

Story Highlights

  • Third time support has exceeded 60%, along with 2017 and 2021
  • Republicans primarily behind the increase, with 58% now in favor
  • Political independents remain group most likely to favor third party
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Chetzemoka@startrek.website 12 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I know RCV is the zeitgeist, but I really think Approval Voting is better and easier for the public. I'm glad you mentioned it

[-] Rekhyt@lemmy.world 21 points 9 months ago

And yet when I say this people look at me like I'm crazy and tell me "Sir this is a Wendy's"

Seriously, though, Approval Voting is literally the simplest voting method (vote yes or no on each candidate) and yet it has zero traction.

[-] TechyDad@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

That's why I always mention it. I personally would prefer Ranked Choice. However, considering the introduction intelligence of many Americans, telling them "number 1, 2, 3, etc based on how much you like the candidates" might confuse them. Instead, "mark the ones you like" is much easier.

[-] Cornelius_Wangenheim@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

The main problem with Approval is that it still encourages strategic voting. If a 3rd party I really like is close to beating a mainstream party I'd tolerate, I'm incentivized to not select the mainstream party.

I seriously doubt a Approval would ever elect a 3rd party candidate.

[-] Chetzemoka@startrek.website 5 points 9 months ago

The Center for Election Science disagrees and says that RCV is more likely to encourage extremist candidates:

"Tactical Voting

Approval voting performs rather well in the face of tactical voting. Like any voting method, approval voting does have tactics and strategy such as the “threshold strategy“. Under basic assumptions with tactical voting, approval voting elects beat-all winners (Condorcet winners) when they exist. Computer simulations using Bayesian regret calculations (shown at bottom) demonstrate better utility outcomes in elections using approval voting versus RCV even if all approval voters were tactical and all RCV voters were honest.

RCV is susceptible to tactical exaggeration. This is so much so that when voters are tactical, RCV can degenerate approximately into ordinary plurality voting. Note how approval does not degenerate into plurality. RCV’s tactical vulnerability can also mean voters do not rank their favorite candidate as first."

https://electionscience.org/library/approval-voting-versus-irv/

[-] Asifall@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

I watched their video about this and I don’t think it’s really that simple. Yes, approval voting means your first choice will never harm your second choice, but your 2nd choice can still absolutely harm your 1st choice. In a situation where there are 3 (or more) approximately tied candidates, voting for any candidate which is not your favorite is likely to harm your favorite’s chances.

Also, their example of a “spoiler” effect doesn’t really convince me. Sure, they negatively frame it by calling the winner party “bad”, but that candidate got more first round votes than the other candidates so it’s logical for it to have an advantage over a candidate who is mostly a second choice.

It doesn’t seem like a likely scenario either, it requires a scenario where voters who prefer candidate A want B as their second choice, but voters who want candidate B have no agreement with candidate A.

this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2023
503 points (92.6% liked)

politics

18073 readers
2939 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS