Have you studied it? What do you think?
Also, how do I created poll?
Er, is approval voting something where you vote on whether to keep the current politician or make a run between two brand new candidates?
Oh, where you can vote for multiple candidates? It's, interesting, and I can see it being a method used to avoid two party systems. Not sure how it works in practice.
Ok, no, not at all.
This is... interesting. I'll have to think about it.
Quote from: Vene on May 04, 2010, 01:53:38 AM
Oh, where you can vote for multiple candidates? It's, interesting, and I can see it being a method used to avoid two party systems. Not sure how it works in practice.
This, yeah.
Basically, everyone votes for as few or as many candidates as they want. From a game theory perspective it makes everyone more likely to get something they want, and it also has the added benefit of quashing two-party systems fairly easily.
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 04, 2010, 01:56:12 AM
Quote from: Vene on May 04, 2010, 01:53:38 AM
Oh, where you can vote for multiple candidates? It's, interesting, and I can see it being a method used to avoid two party systems. Not sure how it works in practice.
This, yeah.
Basically, everyone votes for as few or as many candidates as they want. From a game theory perspective it makes everyone more likely to get something they want, and it also has the added benefit of quashing two-party systems fairly easily.
If there are already two well established parties, I'm not sure if it would quash them quickly. Like, let's go with an election and there are three candidates, R, D, and I. I appeals to a lot of D voters, so they list both D and I, but it doesn't appeal to all Ds, so they just vote strictly D. And R voters despise I so they don't vote that way. So, you're left with a situation where the third party doesn't get a lot of support, maybe more than in the past, but not enough to change the parties in charge.
But if the third party makes a strong showing it'll gain support over time.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on May 04, 2010, 02:54:16 AM
But if the third party makes a strong showing it'll gain support over time.
Quote from: Vene on May 04, 2010, 02:29:27 AMIf there are already two well established parties, I'm not sure if it would quash them quickly.
When I say quickly, I mean quickly for politics.
In which case I can see it working quickly.
Gradual change is an advantage if anything, if you get enough support you could push the system changes through without terrifying incumbents.
No idea, I'll have to read up on it.
I recall this fucker named Felix bringing it up in a thread when I first joined:
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=18160.30
:wink:
Well yeah. Because it's a handy topic to discuss when people start talking about democracy as if it was restricted to a plurality vote. And, although I can't recall where, I remember thinking I was seeing that again.
ETA: And there are enough new people (and people who haven't heard of it) to make it worth bringing back up.
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 04, 2010, 07:31:50 AM
Well yeah. Because it's a handy topic to discuss when people start talking about democracy as if it was restricted to a plurality vote. And, although I can't recall where, I remember thinking I was seeing that again.
ETA: And there are enough new people (and people who haven't heard of it) to make it worth bringing back up.
Oh, I"m not calling cock an repost or anything. It was a good discussion with some resources linked that I thought might help.
Don't forget Arrow's theorem. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_Theorem)
is it different from instant runoff voting? ie - you pick your favorite 2 or 3 options, instead of 1? A friend of mine ran for NYC city council on the platform that instant runoff voting should replace all current voting processes. He didn't win, but I thought he made a pretty strong case.
I think the big difference is that this is simpler to explain to people than instant runoff.
Yeah. The only difference is "pick as many as you like."
And when you're trying to change something this basic to people's ideas about democracy, you gotta keep it simp.
I came across a site about this a while ago and instantly struck my interest. I've been using approval voting any time we had to come up with a sort of democratic decision with a group of friends and it worked. Can't say how well single voting would have otherwise worked, probably less so cause in a smaller group you get a lot of ones if you have a large number of options.
I think it was this site: http://www.approvalvoting.org/
Also they have a page describing the advantages versus instant runoff voting: http://www.approvalvoting.org/irv.html
Seems the most important reason is that approval voting is simpler to explain, but there appear to be a few game-theoretical reasons why IRV is less desirable as well.
I used that site as a source in a speech I once gave on approval voting.