"In particular, any kind of rank voting, where the voter is trying to pick the top rank candidate, will be flawed."
I disagree with this intensely - both in terms of what the voter is trying to do, and that ranked choice voting (preferential voting, instant run-off voting) is flawed.
The voter is usually demonstrating their clear first preference, but also how they rank all other candidates after that. This serves two purposes: (1) it provides a much more finely grained understanding of how voters collectively think, and (2) it ensures that a vote isn't "wasted" if the candidate they voted for first is not one of the top two candidates.
In Australia, unlike much of the US, under Ranked Choice, quite a lot of seats are "marginal", and depending on which way the political winds are blowing, they can go to either major party, and change hands reasonably frequently - not necessarily every cycle, but every two or three.
The situation often looks like this in terms of voters' first preferences:
Major Party (Centre Right) 37.2%
Major Party (Centre Left) 38.8%
Minor Party (Right) 7%
Minor Party (Left) 7%
Fringe Right or Independent 4%
Fringe Left or Independent 4%
Others 2%
Every voter is required to number the candidates 1-n.
In some seats, (mostly conservative rural ones, or inner-city lefty ones) a Minor Party is able to actually finish in the top two, but the principle remains the same.
So quite a few seats are on a knife's edge, and in general, reflects how people feel about the political spectrum. But without a Ranked Choice system, you can't get to a fair result, but after the distribution of preferences, one of the top two will emerge with 51% of the vote, and they will be the winner.
While this purportedly infringes a number of the Condorcet Principles, it does mean that "the least disliked" (ie, the most broadly approved) candidate will emerge as the winner, which is much fairer than a FPTP winner with less than 40% of the votes.
The system is also very suitable in encouraging minor parties to exist and trying to be a player - and that is a good thing.
In some seats, (mostly conservative rural ones, or inner-city lefty ones) a Minor Party is able to actually finish in the top two, but the principle remains the same.
So quite a few seats are on a knife's edge, and in general, reflects how people feel about the political spectrum. But without a Ranked Choice system, you can't get to a fair result, but after the distribution of preferences, one of the top two will emerge with 51% of the vote, and they will be the winner.
While this purportedly infringes a number of the Condorcet Principles, it does mean that "the least disliked" (ie, the most broadly approved) candidate will emerge as the winner, which is much fairer than a FPTP winner with less than 40% of the votes.
The system is also very suitable in encouraging minor parties to exist and trying to be a player - and that is a good thing.
"But without a Ranked Choice system, you can't get to a fair result"
I don't know that we actually disagree, in that we are both critical of First Past The Post, and some of the concerns raised by Kenneth Arrow are abstract and not especially practical to day to day politics. I suppose everyone accepts that no system of voting will ever be perfect. Still, I think you should be careful about how you use the word "fair." Ranked Choice might be better than First Past The Post, but it still fails to aggregate the will of the voters in at least some circumstances. There are cases where it will be unfair. This is discussed in some of the articles that I linked to.
"I disagree with this intensely - both in terms of what the voter is trying to do, and that ranked choice voting (preferential voting, instant run-off voting) is flawed."
I'm sorry if the context wasn't clear, but I'm simply quoting Kenneth Arrow. As he said, First Past The Post is terrible, and almost any system of voting is better than that. You mention some systems of voting that function better than First Past The Post. "Ranked choice voting" is an improvement. However, in 1953 Kenneth Arrow was able to prove that any rank system of voting will fail, in some way, to aggregate voter preferences. You can argue that most of these failures are minor, or only come up in rare circumstances. Most people have intuitions about a system of voting that would be "good enough" to be considered legitimate. Everyone has slightly different intuitions about this. Some people surprise me by defending First Past The Post despite its obvious flaws -- but if we're going to accept flawed voting systems (as Kenneth Arrow defined "flawed") then of course someone will defend First Past The Post, since it is simply one more flawed voting system. More about Kenneth Arrow here:
It is worth noting that Arrow was mostly critical of rank forms of voting. He was more positive about the possibilities of approval voting.
You wrote "I disagree with this intensely." Could you be more clear about who you are disagreeing with? Are you disagreeing with Kenneth Arrow's math, or are you disagreeing with something that I said?
As to this:
"The voter is usually demonstrating their clear first preference"
Keep in mind, the alternative to democracy is civil war. I can go and get a gun and try to kill everyone who disagrees with me. So you need to clarify why I would care about a voter's clear first preference. What if I disagree with that preference? Wouldn't it be simpler to kill the voter and then not have to worry about their clear first preference? That is, what is the utilitarian case that would want me to honor the votes of others? I think the answer is that I will end up happier, wealthier, healthier and safer if I honor the outcome of a good system of voting. Over the long term, democracies tend to deliver higher economic growth, more safety and stability, less corruption, longer life spans, lower childhood mortality, less arbitrary action, and less incidents of national crisis. But if I follow the utilitarian argument, then I'm only interested in the best outcome of the best voting system. I do not have any interest, at all, in the "clear first preference" of any voter. If approval voting smothers a voters "clear first preference" I could not care in the least. What I do care about is that the voter participates in the election, sends signals to the system via their votes, and thus helps improve outcomes for everyone. I wrote about this here:
"In particular, any kind of rank voting, where the voter is trying to pick the top rank candidate, will be flawed."
I disagree with this intensely - both in terms of what the voter is trying to do, and that ranked choice voting (preferential voting, instant run-off voting) is flawed.
The voter is usually demonstrating their clear first preference, but also how they rank all other candidates after that. This serves two purposes: (1) it provides a much more finely grained understanding of how voters collectively think, and (2) it ensures that a vote isn't "wasted" if the candidate they voted for first is not one of the top two candidates.
In Australia, unlike much of the US, under Ranked Choice, quite a lot of seats are "marginal", and depending on which way the political winds are blowing, they can go to either major party, and change hands reasonably frequently - not necessarily every cycle, but every two or three.
The situation often looks like this in terms of voters' first preferences:
Major Party (Centre Right) 37.2%
Major Party (Centre Left) 38.8%
Minor Party (Right) 7%
Minor Party (Left) 7%
Fringe Right or Independent 4%
Fringe Left or Independent 4%
Others 2%
Every voter is required to number the candidates 1-n.
In some seats, (mostly conservative rural ones, or inner-city lefty ones) a Minor Party is able to actually finish in the top two, but the principle remains the same.
So quite a few seats are on a knife's edge, and in general, reflects how people feel about the political spectrum. But without a Ranked Choice system, you can't get to a fair result, but after the distribution of preferences, one of the top two will emerge with 51% of the vote, and they will be the winner.
While this purportedly infringes a number of the Condorcet Principles, it does mean that "the least disliked" (ie, the most broadly approved) candidate will emerge as the winner, which is much fairer than a FPTP winner with less than 40% of the votes.
The system is also very suitable in encouraging minor parties to exist and trying to be a player - and that is a good thing.
In some seats, (mostly conservative rural ones, or inner-city lefty ones) a Minor Party is able to actually finish in the top two, but the principle remains the same.
So quite a few seats are on a knife's edge, and in general, reflects how people feel about the political spectrum. But without a Ranked Choice system, you can't get to a fair result, but after the distribution of preferences, one of the top two will emerge with 51% of the vote, and they will be the winner.
While this purportedly infringes a number of the Condorcet Principles, it does mean that "the least disliked" (ie, the most broadly approved) candidate will emerge as the winner, which is much fairer than a FPTP winner with less than 40% of the votes.
The system is also very suitable in encouraging minor parties to exist and trying to be a player - and that is a good thing.
"But without a Ranked Choice system, you can't get to a fair result"
I don't know that we actually disagree, in that we are both critical of First Past The Post, and some of the concerns raised by Kenneth Arrow are abstract and not especially practical to day to day politics. I suppose everyone accepts that no system of voting will ever be perfect. Still, I think you should be careful about how you use the word "fair." Ranked Choice might be better than First Past The Post, but it still fails to aggregate the will of the voters in at least some circumstances. There are cases where it will be unfair. This is discussed in some of the articles that I linked to.
"I disagree with this intensely - both in terms of what the voter is trying to do, and that ranked choice voting (preferential voting, instant run-off voting) is flawed."
I'm sorry if the context wasn't clear, but I'm simply quoting Kenneth Arrow. As he said, First Past The Post is terrible, and almost any system of voting is better than that. You mention some systems of voting that function better than First Past The Post. "Ranked choice voting" is an improvement. However, in 1953 Kenneth Arrow was able to prove that any rank system of voting will fail, in some way, to aggregate voter preferences. You can argue that most of these failures are minor, or only come up in rare circumstances. Most people have intuitions about a system of voting that would be "good enough" to be considered legitimate. Everyone has slightly different intuitions about this. Some people surprise me by defending First Past The Post despite its obvious flaws -- but if we're going to accept flawed voting systems (as Kenneth Arrow defined "flawed") then of course someone will defend First Past The Post, since it is simply one more flawed voting system. More about Kenneth Arrow here:
https://electionscience.org/commentary-analysis/voting-theory-remembering-kenneth-arrow-and-his-impossibility-theorem/
It is worth noting that Arrow was mostly critical of rank forms of voting. He was more positive about the possibilities of approval voting.
You wrote "I disagree with this intensely." Could you be more clear about who you are disagreeing with? Are you disagreeing with Kenneth Arrow's math, or are you disagreeing with something that I said?
As to this:
"The voter is usually demonstrating their clear first preference"
Keep in mind, the alternative to democracy is civil war. I can go and get a gun and try to kill everyone who disagrees with me. So you need to clarify why I would care about a voter's clear first preference. What if I disagree with that preference? Wouldn't it be simpler to kill the voter and then not have to worry about their clear first preference? That is, what is the utilitarian case that would want me to honor the votes of others? I think the answer is that I will end up happier, wealthier, healthier and safer if I honor the outcome of a good system of voting. Over the long term, democracies tend to deliver higher economic growth, more safety and stability, less corruption, longer life spans, lower childhood mortality, less arbitrary action, and less incidents of national crisis. But if I follow the utilitarian argument, then I'm only interested in the best outcome of the best voting system. I do not have any interest, at all, in the "clear first preference" of any voter. If approval voting smothers a voters "clear first preference" I could not care in the least. What I do care about is that the voter participates in the election, sends signals to the system via their votes, and thus helps improve outcomes for everyone. I wrote about this here:
https://demodexio.substack.com/p/should-a-system-of-voting-aim-to?s=w