M. Grégoire
When it comes to popular elections, it is very important that the system be something well-understood and trusted by the public — so quadratic voting is *not* the right method to elect the representatives. But there are other applications where it would be useful, such as setting priorities among 41 equals.
Colorado Tried a New Way to Vote: Make People Pay—Quadratically | WIRED
https://www.wired.com/story/colorado-quadratic-voting-experiment/
Adam
@mpjgregoire An aside to the main thrust of the article, I saw the quote below and can't decide if this system is delightfully passive-aggressive or a pointless exercise in turning a standard FPTP system on its head. I suppose, since you're voting against someone rather than explicitly for something, the outcomes might be difference, but it's so...silly:
"There’s an approach called 'antiplurality,”' where everyone chooses their least favorite candidate, and whoever gets the fewest votes wins."
M. Grégoire
@ink_slinger There are so many fun different voting systems. For instance, in approval voting, you get to put a checkmark against the name of everyone you think would be acceptable as a winner, then the person who gets the most votes is selected.
For me any system to be used to elect governments needs to be something that can be easily explained and conducted without any electronics.
15 years ago, I was in BC, explaining STV to an audience with an average age in the 60s. Not a success.
M. Grégoire
@ink_slinger Have a look at the comparison table of voting systems at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method#Comparison_table !
Adam
@mpjgregoire Yeah, this is why I'm more and more leaning toward ranked ballots if we ever do get electoral reform in Canada (instant run-off, specifically, since STV is also a form of ranked ballot). It's probably the easiest one to explain to people. Whether or not it is "best" is a different story, of course, and probably a debate worth having if electoral reform is ever back on the table.
Interesting side note: apparently we used to use STV in Alberta until the last 1950s.
Adam
@mpjgregoire The Alberta system was especially weird because STV was only used for Edmonton and Calgary (and, for a time, Medicine Hat) for the purpose of electing MLAs. In all other provincial electoral districts, they used instant-runoff.
STV was also briefly used for municipal elections in Edmonton, Calgary and Lethbridge.
Supposedly it was abandoned because it gave minorities "too much say", but the source that says that isn't neutral so I honestly don't know if that's true.
M. Grégoire
@ink_slinger
Typically when a reformed electoral system is brought in briefly and then revoked, it was introduced by the parties of the status quo to block a rising challenger; and when the challenger gains power, they eliminate the intended obstruction. But I don't know the specifics in Alberta.
We should also remember that multiple-member constituencies were quite common in the past of Canada, as well as in the UK.
Adam
@mpjgregoire > We should also remember that multiple-member constituencies were quite common in the past of Canada
True. It's only been 10 years since Edmonton city council adopted the current one-councillor-per-ward system. Prior to 2009, we had half as many wards, but each of them had two councillors instead of just one.
Jonkman Microblog is a social network, courtesy of SOBAC Microcomputer Services. It runs on GNU social, version 1.2.0-beta5, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All Jonkman Microblog content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.