https://electionscience.org/research-hub/the-limits-of-ranked-choice-voting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_responsiveness_paradox#Specific_examples
We’ve seen it happen in actual elections, as shown in the Wikipedia link.
RCV is just a flawed system, which is expected for something created by a couple of guys 150+ years ago.
IRV, or RCV as it’s being sold here, has a lot of problems.
It’s the only voting system in existence where ranking someone higher on the ballot can cause them to lose the election.
Australia gets around most of the problems of IRV by just not telling people any information about the vote except the winners.
Also you only use straight IRV for a single part of your government.
The US would use it for every part of our government. It would be a shit show.
Which is why RCV has been banned in half a dozen states.
Now, there are better voting systems. Systems that live up to the hype.
STAR is the single best voting system designed to date.
As a cardinal voting system, it’s actually immune to the Spoiler Effect.
These folks have a good breakdown of RCV’s flaws. https://www.equal.vote/rcv_v_star
A lot of it boils down to how RCV is just a series of First Past the Post elections on the same ballot. This means that it can never really rise above FPtP.
Fun fact that the site I provided gets wrong, RCV isn’t actually 150 years old, it’s actually a bit older. The Marquis de Condorcet actually came up with the idea in the 1790s, but abandoned it because of its flaws.
If you want some unrelated reading, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquis_de_Condorcet The guy was based as fuck.
Here’s a direct quote from one of his more influential works, “On the Admission of Women to the Rights of Citizenship”
The rights of men stem exclusively from the fact that they are sentient beings, capable of acquiring moral ideas and of reasoning upon them. Since women have the same qualities, they necessarily also have the same rights. Either no member of the human race has any true rights, or else they all have the same ones; and anyone who votes against the rights of another, whatever his religion, colour or sex, automatically forfeits his own.
That was 1790.
Sadly, the political party that was backing him fell out of power and the replacements had him arrested, and possibly killed.
This was his final work http://files.libertyfund.org/files/1669/Condorcet_0878_EBk_v6.0.pdf
That is the fastest way to turn a blue state red.
Split the vote so that the minority Republican vote can win. Because there are more registered Republicans in California than in Texas.
No, the actual answer is to change the voting system to a Cardinal system, so that there are no such things as Spoiler party’s or split votes.
Approval or STAR are the answer. Either would enable third parties to exist and thrive.
As a note RCV is not a Cardinal system, and still has the Spoiler Effect. People lie about it saying it’s the fix for all problems, but it’s actually worse than what we have (there are parts that are better, but more parts that are far worse)
Is blue sky federated? I thought it was another closed garden. If slightly more open than Twitter.
Mindustry is much closer to the tower defense side of it.
Or maybe the RTS side.
There are even attack modes, where you build up an army to take on a fixed emplacement of enemy units.
Harris was the path of things slowly getting better. Wages finally overtaking inflation.
Given a couple years, we would all be in a better place.
Trump’s tariffs will drive up the price of everything. The last few years of inflation and greed will pale in comparison.
And egg prices will still go up.
Catastrophicly so.
The true captains of industry do want this. chaos is how they transfer wealth from the poor to themselves.
In a depression, the money doesn’t vanish, it goes into the pockets of the super rich.
That’s actually the plan.
Bankrupt the government and sell it off for parts.
Technically it’s the other way around. The size of the electoral college is determined by the size of the House plus the Senate.
Now, the House was meant to increase in size as the population increased.
Now, since the mechanism for that increase wasn’t spelled out in the constitution, there were heated arguments every 10 years over the new maps, but it came to a head in 1921.
Long story short, the permanent apportionment act of 1929 set the size of the House at 435 members. We’ve added two states since then, and the US population has tripped. But still it’s 435.
Repealing that one law would fix several problems.
Fun fact, there’s a 2008 law that specifically forces the president to give Israel all the best military hardware.
It was passed by W on his way out the door, and due to the Democratic party being compromised as hell, there’s never been enough votes to get rid of it, and any time the president might want to hold things back, they get sued under that law.
That was an unsigned non-binding opinion. And the current court will jump on it in a heartbeat.
Removed by mod
The definition is that Tesla is shit.
They’re selling a spotty lane assist as Self Driving when it is not.
Other companies are selling actual self-driving cars, (even if those companies are fucking up as well) but Tesla is nowhere near that level of autonomy. All because Musk cheaped out on the sensor package.
Teslas will never be self-driving, because they literally cannot detect the road and obstacles with just their little camera setup.
They should not be allowed to call it self-driving, or autopilot, or anything else that implies that you can take your hands off the steering wheel.
but you need to supervise it because you are both responsible and because it’s not perfect
Not self-driving then. Words have meanings.
Then it’s not “Full self driving”. It’s at best lane assistance, but I wouldn’t trust that either.
Elon needs to shut the fuck up about self driving and maybe issue a full recall, because he’s going to get people killed.
Proportional representation would be good. But the true fix is to change the voting system to one that supports multiple parties.
The easiest system that does this is Approval. The slightly better option is called STAR.
Both systems have proportional versions, but single winner is honestly good enough.
The actual plan is to crash the economy to theoretically rebuild it stronger.
The thing is, that’s still crashing the economy and the only people with the money to rebuild it will be buying up everything for pennies on the dollar.
The first article is from someone who wants to save RCV, despite that one flaw that they’ve drilled into.
The problem is that it’s a known attack vector, the Wikipedia article talks about how it was used intentionally by a political party in 2005 in Germany to effectively steal an additional seat in their parliament.
My second link is a deeper dive into more of RCV’s many flaws. Because why stop at monotonicity? Seriously, the fact that increasing support can cause a candidate to lose, and not just lose but elect the worst choice, is insane.
That fact that there are more flaws, just as game breaking, means we should all follow the example of the Marquis de Condorcet, the guy who invented RCV, abandoned it because he saw how broken it was.
Then you have the lying liars at FairVote saying that the Condorcet criterion doesn’t matter in elections.
The Condorcet criterion is that if you were to hold a series of one on one elections between all candidates, the winner of those should be the same winner of your election system. RCV fails this in most elections, which is why Condorcet abandoned it.
It wasn’t until about 30 years after Condorcet’s death that an Englishman revived the voting method, but added a proportional twist. It still had all the flaws that Condorcet wrote about, but Condorcet was French, and lost the political games of the French Revolution, so he was mostly ignored.
As a side note, the political writings of Condorcet should be required reading. The guy wrote this in 1790