|
|
Post by Strontium Dog on Aug 30, 2022 16:25:13 GMT
I am sure this is not a new idea, but as an interested non-expert, I was curious as to whether this system had been attempted anywhere, and what its proper name was.
The idea is that you can vote for as many (or few) candidates on the ballot paper as you want, but without ranking them.
Because there is no transfer of votes per se, the vote can be resolved much more quickly than under a transferable vote system.
It would also be easy for people to get their head around, because it's a first past the post system that is functionally identical to what we have now, except for the fact that you can vote for more than one candidate if you so desire.
It would also eliminate much of the need for tactical voting. Not sure whether Tories or Labour are better placed to beat the Lib Dem? No problem, just vote for them both. Not bothered who gets in so long as it's not the Tory? Fine, just vote for everyone else on the ballot.
I've called it "non-preference" above, for want of a better term, but in a way, it enables people to express a binary preference between desirable and non-desirable candidates, without the need to express a ranked preference.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,283
|
Post by YL on Aug 30, 2022 16:57:05 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Aug 30, 2022 19:01:00 GMT
I think that the reason it hasn’t been used (as far as I know) in public elections anywhere in the world is because it would be too vulnerable to tactical voting in all directions. Once you start thinking about what other people will do, and what you think they will think about what other people will do, it gets into too much guesswork and too little of the actual serious business of electing someone.
One example I thought of a while ago is the Labour Party leadership election, in which supporters of David Miliband might have voted for Diane Abbot and David Miliband, in an attempt to knock out Ed Miliband, and supporters of Ed Milband might have voted for Dian Abbot and Ed Miliband in an attempt to knock out David Miliband. Result: Diane Abbot might get elected by mistake.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Aug 31, 2022 7:17:55 GMT
I think that the reason it hasn’t been used (as far as I know) in public elections anywhere in the world is because it would be too vulnerable to tactical voting in all directions. Once you start thinking about what other people will do, and what you think they will think about what other people will do, it gets into too much guesswork and too little of the actual serious business of electing someone. One example I thought of a while ago is the Labour Party leadership election, in which supporters of David Miliband might have voted for Diane Abbot and David Miliband, in an attempt to knock out Ed Miliband, and supporters of Ed Milband might have voted for Dian Abbot and Ed Miliband in an attempt to knock out David Miliband. Result: Diane Abbot might get elected by mistake. What do you mean by "knock out"? This is a siingle-round system. So one candidate wins, the others lose, and nobody gets knocked out partway through the counting/voting process. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,283
|
Post by YL on Aug 31, 2022 8:01:28 GMT
I think that the reason it hasn’t been used (as far as I know) in public elections anywhere in the world is because it would be too vulnerable to tactical voting in all directions. Once you start thinking about what other people will do, and what you think they will think about what other people will do, it gets into too much guesswork and too little of the actual serious business of electing someone. One example I thought of a while ago is the Labour Party leadership election, in which supporters of David Miliband might have voted for Diane Abbot and David Miliband, in an attempt to knock out Ed Miliband, and supporters of Ed Milband might have voted for Dian Abbot and Ed Miliband in an attempt to knock out David Miliband. Result: Diane Abbot might get elected by mistake. What do you mean by "knock out"? This is a siingle-round system. So one candidate wins, the others lose, and nobody gets knocked out partway through the counting/voting process. Presumably he means that both sides “approve” Abbott in an attempt to ensure that their less favoured Miliband doesn’t win, with the result that everyone “approves” her and she wins. Imagine you have three candidates, two of them “extremists” and the third a “centrist” who has little first preference support. You could have something like 55% preferring A, 40% preferring B, 5% preferring C, both A and B’s supporters preferring C to the other and C’s supporters preferring B. Imagine 40% of voters plump and the remaining 60% approve their second choice as well as their first. Then A obviously wins under FPTP, AV/IRV or any Condorcet method, but under this system C is approved by 62%, A by 55% and B by 43%, so C wins. Now you can always come up with strange outcomes for any electoral system, so the question is really whether outcomes like that would happen in practice. (And also whether that outcome is actually “strange”.) The Wikipedia article cites someone saying that it would usually elect Condorcet winners in practice. |
|
European Lefty
Labour
Can be bribed with salted liquorice
Posts: 5,515 
|
Post by European Lefty on Aug 31, 2022 8:13:05 GMT
But people wouldn't vote for a candidate they didn't approve of, or at least would accept as their representative. So if something like that does happen, surely it's just electing the candidate with the highest overall approval?
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,283
|
Post by YL on Aug 31, 2022 8:17:52 GMT
But people wouldn't vote for a candidate they didn't approve of, or at least would accept as their representative. So if something like that does happen, surely it's just electing the candidate with the highest overall approval? Yes, there’s a case that it isn’t actually an unreasonable outcome in a scenario like that. |
|
|
|
Post by casualobserver on Sept 21, 2022 0:53:42 GMT
But people wouldn't vote for a candidate they didn't approve of, or at least would accept as their representative. So if something like that does happen, surely it's just electing the candidate with the highest overall approval? More accurately, it’s electing the candidate with the lowest overall disapproval. It favours the mediocre, the bland and the non-descript |
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on Sept 21, 2022 11:35:41 GMT
One example I thought of a while ago is the Labour Party leadership election, in which supporters of David Miliband might have voted for Diane Abbot and David Miliband, in an attempt to knock out Ed Miliband, and supporters of Ed Milband might have voted for Dian Abbot and Ed Miliband in an attempt to knock out David Miliband. Result: Diane Abbot might get elected by mistake. While obviously not held under this proposed system, there is the very real "unintended consequences" example in 2015 of Labour MPs nominating Corbyn even though they didn't support him "to broaden the field" and then he became leader. |
|
