Sign On
Create Account


multiple14-Mar-2016politics/religiondab by votes27151.9%


Vote for President (approval)

3rd of 3 surveys about voting systems. I'm using the upcoming US Presidential election as a springboard but I want to compare three different ways of voting, so there will be three very similar surveys and then a 4th asking your opinion of them.

In most states there will be more choices than the two major parties so I've put some "third" parties on the ballot here too. Since we don't know yet who will be the nominee from any party, I've just made guesses.

In the third voting system, approval voting, you vote for all the candidates you approve of for the position. The candidate with the most votes wins.

12Hilary Clinton (Democrat)
10Bernie Sanders (Democrat)
6Donald Trump (Republican)
4Gary Johnson (Libertarian)
4Jill Stein (Green)
4Ted Cruz (Republican)
2J. R. Myers (Constitution)
2write in
1won't vote
0Mimi Soltysik (Socialist)

bill Bronze Star Survey Creator
posted 14-Mar-2016 5:16pm  
This suffers a bit in that I know little about the 3rd parties candidates. It might have been better to include all dem/gop candidates as I know more about them. Though, I understand the point of this sort of thing is to give 3rd parties more attention and inclusion. Also, the polarized politics of the day seem to make this harder than it should be. I'd assume moderates would do better with approval voting, but there are very few moderates in politics at the moment.
posted 14-Mar-2016 7:07pm  
I think another aspect of approval voting is that it dramatically reduces the need for primary elections so in the general election you probably would see more of the demopublican/republicrat candidates as well as alternatives.
posted 15-Mar-2016 3:18am  
Gary Johnson
posted 15-Mar-2016 6:08am  
The problem with approval voting in the real world is that it's very amenable to tactical voting. If you have a definite preferred candidate, then you maximise your preferred candidate's chances of winning by only voting for that candidate and not voting for any other. It thus penalises honest voters who do vote for all their acceptable candidates, who find themselves more likely to end up with the one that, despite being OK, is still their second or third choice.
(reply to msgman) posted 15-Mar-2016 7:56am  
Huh. I always thought approval voting was the least problematic with regards to tactical voting of the various options. Certainly the other methods have that problem very badly and first-past-the-post being perhaps the worst of all.
bill Bronze Star Survey Creator
posted 16-Mar-2016 4:10am  
It seems like approval voting could reduce polarization, as candidates might be less motivated to run a negative campaign against other.s They might even run a campaign where they'd tell people to "vote for a both of us".
posted 16-Mar-2016 7:18am  
posted 17-Mar-2016 2:20pm  
Hillary Clinton the best and trusted
(reply to dab) posted 18-Mar-2016 9:38am  
On the contrary, approval voting is by far the worst for tactical voting, and FPTP is the second worst smiley:::smile

It is mathematically impossible to have a perfect way of selecting a winner in an election where there are more than two candidates. But some come closer than others.

The one which comes closest to theoretical perfection is the multiple pairwise comparisons method, often named after its inventor, the French Mathematicion the Marquis de Condorcet. Condorcet is the only voting system where there is no possible benefit to voting tactically; the best course of action for every voter is to vote honestly. But there are few cases where Condorcet voting is used in the real world, partly because it's quite hard to get your head round, partly because it's fairly complex to evaluate (in practical terms, it has to be done by computer for anything more than a handful of voters), and partly because under some circumstances it can result in a three-way tie for the winner.

The second best method is Alternative Vote, or AV.This isn't quite as perfect, mathematically, as Condorcet, but it's good enough for most practical purposes. And it's easier to understand and evaluate, as well. Which is why it's the method of choice in most real life situations that use a ranking vote.

(It's worth noting here that SC's ranking surveys don't use AV, they use a Borda count. That's also very subject to tactical voting, and hence isn't used in real world elections either. But it's dead easy to evaluate, which is why it's often used for things like polls of "best album ever" and the suchlike).
(reply to msgman) posted 18-Mar-2016 6:35pm  
If you have references to approval voting being the worst for tactical voting I'd be interested. I know I've read otherwise and it feels like it would be one of the better systems in cutting down on the practice.

Is AV the same as Instant Runoff? I knew SC's ranking didn't work that way but was really more like a rating voting system but I wasn't going to get into it that much.
(reply to msgman) posted 18-Mar-2016 6:47pm  
The Wikipedia page on Tactical Voting suggests that approval voting is pretty good, citing a 2001 paper in Science that "approval voting was the system least amenable to tactical perturbations".

Also, The Center for Election Science's page on approval voting says: approval voting is highly resistant to tactical voting.

I'd like to read what you found that contradicts these.
posted 24-Apr-2016 11:18pm  
Trump... I would never vote for The Benghazi Beyatch or the socialist..

If you'd like to vote and/or comment on this survey, please Sign On

Link this survey:

Hits: 0 today (7 in the last 30 days)