Users browsing this thread:

***Roavin*** · 07-06-2018, 06:20 AM

I also prefer Beepee's wording over Frost's, as it actually covers the case we just had.

I wouldn't say approval voting has failed. That being said, I'm absolutely indifferent on whether we use one or the other. They both have their pros and cons.

***sandaoguo*** · 07-07-2018, 06:16 PM

(07-06-2018, 05:33 AM)siames Wrote:
(07-06-2018, 05:23 AM)sandaoguo Wrote:
(07-06-2018, 05:17 AM)Belschaft Wrote: We could just end the experiment with approval voting and go back to IRV for Chair elections....

Why? How has the “experiment” failed?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I believe he is referring to the last CoA elections, which ended in a tie and was only resolved by @Rebeltopia dropping out.

There's no electoral system where it's impossible to have ties. We've had ties before under IRV, too.

***Roavin*** · 07-07-2018, 09:45 PM

(07-07-2018, 06:16 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: There's no electoral system where it's impossible to have ties. We've had ties before under IRV, too.

I can contrive one, though it would be absurd and unfair. Tounge

**Belschaft** · 07-08-2018, 02:58 PM

(07-07-2018, 06:16 PM)sandaoguo Wrote:
(07-06-2018, 05:33 AM)siames Wrote:
(07-06-2018, 05:23 AM)sandaoguo Wrote:
(07-06-2018, 05:17 AM)Belschaft Wrote: We could just end the experiment with approval voting and go back to IRV for Chair elections....

Why? How has the “experiment” failed?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I believe he is referring to the last CoA elections, which ended in a tie and was only resolved by @Rebeltopia dropping out.

There's no electoral system where it's impossible to have ties. We've had ties before under IRV, too.

True, but they are easier to resolve.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

Escade · 07-08-2018, 08:38 PM

I'm going to agree that having a consistent voting system would be preferable.

Escade

~ Positions Held in TSP ~
Delegate | Vice Delegate
Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs
~ The Sparkly One ~

My Pinterest

Tim · 07-08-2018, 08:40 PM

I'd prefer returning to IRV. The Approval experiment was fun, but I sincerely prefer IRV to it.

[Image: Lj1SunN.png]
Formerly Banned For Still Unspecified "OOC Toxicity"

***sandaoguo*** · 07-10-2018, 01:28 PM

(07-08-2018, 02:58 PM)Belschaft Wrote: True, but they are easier to resolve.

No they aren't. There's no difference in settling ties between any electoral system. Tie-breaking is always an external choice, not built-in to a system. Any electoral system -- IRV, approval, FPTP, Condorcet, etc -- can produce ties, and none of them come with a tie-breaking rule. "Choose at random" (our preferred tie-breaking method) is not easier or harder under approval voting than it is under IRV.

It's simple common sense that a tiny population of people voting will produce ties at a higher rate than entire countries voting. We're 30 people at most, so when there are 3 or more candidates, there's a high likelihood of ties. If people want to decrease that likelihood, the only way to do that is through less competitive elections.

(This post was last modified: 07-10-2018, 01:29 PM by sandaoguo.)

**Seraph** · 07-10-2018, 05:58 PM

(07-10-2018, 01:28 PM)sandaoguo Wrote:
(07-08-2018, 02:58 PM)Belschaft Wrote: True, but they are easier to resolve.

No they aren't. There's no difference in settling ties between any electoral system. Tie-breaking is always an external choice, not built-in to a system. Any electoral system -- IRV, approval, FPTP, Condorcet, etc -- can produce ties, and none of them come with a tie-breaking rule. "Choose at random" (our preferred tie-breaking method) is not easier or harder under approval voting than it is under IRV.

It's simple common sense that a tiny population of people voting will produce ties at a higher rate than entire countries voting. We're 30 people at most, so when there are 3 or more candidates, there's a high likelihood of ties. If people want to decrease that likelihood, the only way to do that is through less competitive elections.

I assume Belschaft means that IRV, owing to the nature of the ballot information voters provide, gives the counter more information to use to break the tie with, should they so choose, such as the number of second place votes, etc. So, no, IRV doesn't inherently change the fact that tie breaking remains an external choice, but it provides some more concrete options for them to work with, at least compared to approval voting.

Sent from my KOB-L09 using Tapatalk

Founder of the Church of the South Pacific [Forum Thread] [Discord], a safe place to discuss spirituality for people of all faiths and none (currently looking for those interested in prayer and/or "home" groups);
And The Silicon Pens [Discord], a writer's group for the South Pacific and beyond!

Yahweo usenneo ir varleo, ihraneo jurlaweo hraseu seu, ir jiweveo arladi.

Salma 145:8

translate

***sandaoguo*** · 07-10-2018, 07:35 PM

It doesn’t, though. IRV and approval voting are both preferential methods. They both show who people prefer and the order in which they prefer them. The only difference is that you get to cast multiple votes under approval voting all at the same time, rather than only if your first preference gets knocked off.

Breaking a tie by looking at who has more second-best preferences on the first ballot is also an unfair method that doesn’t exist in the real world. It was an ad hoc thing that one EC decided to do with one Delegate election.

A tie, the literally definition of it, means that voters are split down the middle in who they’d prefer. Under approval voting, that usually means either candidate is equally preferred by roughly the same group of voters. Under IRV, it means that there are two equal-size groups of voters that prefer one candidate over the other.

With approval voting, the tiebreaker is simple. Both candidates clearly have roughly equal support of all voters. So picking at random doesn’t result in 50% of voters not getting who they prefer.

With IRV, randomly choosing a winner is the most fair option, even though 50% of voters will be disappointed with the outcome. The only other options — like picking who got the most first-preference votes in the original ballot — violates the one person, one vote principle. The same happens for choosing the person got more second-place votes for when there’s a tie for the second spot in Delegate elections.

In either case, there’s no more information than the other. They provide different sets of information about preferences, but that doesn’t make one easier than the other for tiebreakers. If anything, tiebreaking under approval voting is more fair because less people are dissatisfied with the result.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk