Hacker News Reader

Comment by peatmoss | Hacker News Reader

Wedge issues have really split us irrationally. Group A tells scary bedtime stories to their children using caricatures of an average Group B position as a way to maintain in-group discipline.

What seems to be new now, is that Group B has taken to espousing Group A's caricature as a way of proving their group identity. "Group A says we eat babies. I eat more babies than anyone else, proving my Group B bonafides!" If you want to stand out in the primaries, you can't be a competent, coalition-building centrist. You gotta eat more babies than the next guy.

Current political system reinforces extremism. I'm of the camp that believes we urgently need incremental reforms like Ranked Choice Voting and open primaries. It doesn't solve everything, but it's the reform we can do that gives us the most mileage today.

View on HN

Although FPTP is bad, it's not at all clear that IRV (the election method that most mean when they say the ballot-marking method of RCV) actually leads to less extremism. It's a chaos monkey in any race that approaches competitive, and changes that one might expect to help A (such as more A > B > C votes) can actually hurt A. That is, its bad results show up precisely when it might produce a different outcome than FPTP. See the recent Alaska house election for an actual case.

If you're tied to a full ranking, there are much better choices than IRV; any of the Condorcet methods, for instance. However, rating systems are far more likely to produce compromise candidates. I like Approval, perhaps with a runoff between the top 2.

EDITTED-TO-ADD: In practice IRV and FPTP both suffer from the "center-squeeze effect": https://electionscience.org/library/the-center-squeeze-effec...

Would you mind explaining more about what you mean regarding the recent Alaska election? The information I have found about it made it seem fairly reasonable and straightforward to me, but perhaps I am missing something.

Here's a decent commentary:

https://www.reddit.com/r/EndFPTP/comments/x9oupk/2022_alaska...

> Two popular suspicions are now confirmed. Nick Begich was the Condorcet winner. Sarah Palin was a spoiler candidate - her presence caused Mary Peltola to be elected, by prematurely eliminating Nick Begich.

Here's another, that got down-voted to hell, because of the audience.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ForwardPartyUSA/comments/xb119e/its...

> If 2913 voters who supported Palin first and Begich second flipped their first and second preferences, they’d have gotten a more preferred result.

(i.e. they would have gotten Begich instead of Peltola, by having Palin eliminated first)

> Even worse, if instead 5825 of those same types of voters just decided not to vote, they’d have also gotten a better result. So merely participating in the election hurt them.

While I do prefer the winner it selected, it's not a great election method. Better than FPTP is a terribly low bar.

Condorcet has arguably worse features:

1. Even harder to explain to the average voter than RCV

2. Greater likelihood of nobody winning / needing to conduct new election

I am of the belief that RCV is not great, but that it is significantly better than status quo... and it is possible.

For 1, meh. Marking is the same and it is much closer to incentivizing honest reporting. For 2, everyone advocating for Condorcet has some favorite cycle-breaker. Mostly it doesn't matter; it's a lot more rare than non-monotonicity in IRV.

But my favorite is approval.

I see, that was helpful - thank you!

IIUC how it would've worked in Australia is:

First round:

Begic and Peltola garner the most first-place votes, Palin is eliminated.

Voters who ranked Palin first get their second choice promoted to first. Presumably that would be Begic for most voters.

Second round:

Begic first choice votes + Palin > Begic votes vs. Peltola votes

Looking at the data in the reddit vote breakdown thread it looks like Begic would've won with this method.

I don't know if they're exactly following the Australian STV rules, but it is quite similar.

Begich had the fewest amount of _first_ place votes, so was eliminated first.

However, Begich was ranked ahead of Palin (and Pelota for that matter) on more ballots than vice-versa.

> Begich had the fewest amount of _first_ place votes, so was eliminated first.

Ah, I misunderstood that part. Under Australian rules voters who ranked Begich first would have had their second choices promoted to first and added to the respective candidates. In this case ~27k for Palin and ~15.5k for Peltola. Then the totals are compared.

Looking at it that way it's not so clear cut that it was unfair that Peltola was declared the winner. I think reasonable arguments can be made either way.

One thing though is that on Australian ballots all candidates must be ranked.

> Under Australian rules voters who ranked Begich first would have had their second choices promoted to first and added to the respective candidates. In this case ~27k for Palin and ~15.5k for Peltola. Then the totals are compared.

Exactly what happened. Palin was a spoiler -- had she not run, Begich would ha e won instead.

> One thing though is that on Australian ballots all candidates must be ranked.

That's kind of ridiculous. It's quite unwieldy and leads to many spoiled ballots. And I don't think forcing ordering past the point of caring really changes anything.

First time I've heard this, great point. (The baby eating thing, not ranked choice voting)

I think extremism is a sign things are bad, but haven't gotten worse. Like, normal communication has broken down, but nothing has escalated to the really scary place where everyone shuts up.

Falling off a cliff isn't so bad, it's the impact with the ground that we should worry about.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com