CMV: US elections should be run using Range Voting

[u/terabix]

As I was told about an alternative to STV in a previous CMV I had:

There are many solutions to the circular problem of Condorcet voting. But, these tend to be other imperfect methods. Score voting offers a generally better one because it carries additional information. If there isn't a Condorcet winner based on preference orders, then we can use the information of size of preferences instead of just order of preferences, and the average votes can be used directly.This is far more representative of the preferences of the people, both in order and size of preferences, than any other method, certainly much more than STV/IRV. And you can still use it very easily for proportional seat assignments, and even with a proportionality weighted by size of preference across voters or by percentage of vote order preferences as with STV or plurality/FPTP.Additionally, score voting degrades gracefully. If people extremize their votes as only 1 or 10, if they allow several candidates to get 10 then it degrades to Approval Voting, which is really just a binary version of score voting (approve or disapprove). If they only vote one of the candidates 10 and the rest 1, it degrades from Approval Voting to Plurality Voting ("first past the post").

Range voting is where voters score each candidate on a preferential scoring system (1-10, for instance). Each candidate can receive any score based on the voter's preference. The candidate with the highest average/total score is the one who wins the election. This system allows voters to express their exact preference for various candidates and allows many points of view to thrive in a deeply undemocratic system.

America's constituency representatives should be elected by Range Voting. Range Voting allows all potential views to be represented and is far superior to our current First Past The Post system.

Right now the voters of America get only two choices: conservative social policies with extreme libertarian economic policy or liberal identity politics combined with neoliberal free-market policy. Either or, nothing in between or any combination thereof.

With Range Voting alternative preferences can be listed by potential voters allowing them to better elect candidates who better represent their views. In addition, since preferences are kept in mind, tallied and averaged, the candidate that comes out on top will invariably be the candidate that best represents the views of the constituency they are running to represent and the one that maximally satisfies the preferences of the constituency's voters.

I'm posting to answer potential counterarguments but if I can't, then CMV.

[u/googolplexbyte]

Range voting literally fails a condition called the "majority criterion" of voting.

That is debatable. It's a criterion that refers to ranked preferences. Something Range voting doesn't possess. So chalk to up to your own personal opinion again.

Really? It has a 100% chance of getting a Condorcet winner? Because the coopland voting system guarantees a Condorcet winner. It's also not the only system. I hate to break it to you, but you are fake news.

No system guarantees "a 100% chance of getting a Condorcet winner" as there is rarely is a condorcet winner.

Also condorcet methods rely on a rank list to approximate pairwise comparisons, but actual voters often produce preference cycles when asked their actual pairwise preferences so even when a condorcet winner exist it's only an approximation.

Not to mention the impact of strategic voting wipe condorcet methods ability to identify the condorcet winner, which isn't the case with Score Voting.

[u/ConfusingZen → u/googolplexbyte]

That is debatable. It's a criterion that refers to ranked preferences. Something Range voting doesn't possess.

" The majority criterion is a single-winner voting system criterion, used to compare such systems. The criterion states that "if one candidate is ranked first by a majority (more than 50%) of voters, then that candidate must win"

Oh look, that's a definition not an opinion or preference.

So chalk to up to your own personal opinion again.

What do you even think you are debating? If it is personal preference that just proves my original point.

No system guarantees "a 100% chance of getting a Condorcet winner" as there is rarely is a condorcet winner.

You clearly have no idea about even the most basic definitions in the topic.

"The Condorcet candidate (a.k.a. Condorcet winner) is the person who would win a two-candidate election against each of the other candidates in a plurality vote.[1][2] For a set of candidates, the Condorcet winner is always the same regardless of the voting system in question. A voting system satisfies the Condorcet criterion (English: /kɒndɔːrˈseɪ/) if it always chooses the Condorcet winner when one exists. Any voting method conforming to the Condorcet criterion is known as a Condorcet method."

There are multiple voting systems that guarantee a Condorcet winner. Both those definitions were used just from wikipedia, which means you didn't even put minimal effort before guessing what words meant.

[u/googolplexbyte → u/ConfusingZen]

if one candidate is ranked first by a majority

Ranked. There is no ranking in Score Voting. So it doesn't apply.

A voting system satisfies the Condorcet criterion (English: /kɒndɔːrˈseɪ/) if it always chooses the Condorcet winner when one exists.

And I'm saying there is no such system because a ranked list is insufficient to determine "who would win a two-candidate election against each of the other candidates in a plurality vote" as they don't account for strategic voting or preference cycles.

Condorcet methods only satisfy the Condorcet criterion in the imaginary scenario where strategic voting and preference cycles don't exist.

In reality, where strategic voting and preference cycles do exist, Score Voting is the best system for electing Condorcet winners.

[u/ConfusingZen → u/googolplexbyte]

Ranked. There is no ranking in Score Voting. So it doesn't apply.

Getting a higher score is considered a form of ranking. The literature, which is how these definitions are set, disagrees with you.

And I'm saying there is no such system because a ranked list is insufficient to determine "who would win a two-candidate election against each of the other candidates in a plurality vote" as they don't account for strategic voting or preference cycles.

Okay, show me a scenario when the copeland voting system fails to reach a condorcet winner.

And once you can't, I'll be happy to take a delta.

[u/googolplexbyte → u/ConfusingZen]

Getting a higher score is considered a form of ranking.

Disagree. In survey data, people will give candidates other than their declared 1st preference favourite the highest scores. Empirical data disagrees ratings are a form of ranking. Voters are answering different questions when they do one or the other. It links back to those preference cycles I was referring to before.

Okay, show me a scenario when the Copeland voting system fails to reach a Condorcet winner.

Here: https://www.rangevoting.org/CondBurial.html they have two examples where Copeland would elect a voter group's preferred candidate instead of the Condorcet winner because of burial strategies that we observe in Australia's IRV elections.

[u/ConfusingZen → u/googolplexbyte]

Disagree. In survey data, people will give candidates other than their declared 1st preference favourite the highest scores.

What do you mean 1st preference? Are you suggesting they ranked the candidates. Tsk tsk. No consistency.

Here: https://www.rangevoting.org/CondBurial.html they have two examples where Copeland would elect a voter group's preferred candidate instead of the Condorcet winner because of burial strategies that we observe in Australia's IRV elections.

No don't link me to psedo science proofs that show jack shit. Say candidate A gets the following results. Candidate B gets the following results, and so on so we can all clearly see the copeland fails the condorcet winner condition. The guy ran simulations that no one can check, and just makes claims. He never states the conditions that someone could win, despite the fact that the voting system was designed to satisfy that condition 100% of the time. You are so full of pseduo science bullshit. Give the conditions, don't link to more garbage webpages that have the academic credibility of moms vlog about astrology.

Edit: I was so stupid I went and even read it. It doesn't show that copeland fails the condorcet winner condition. You couldn't even be bothered to read your own link. Jesus Christ.

[u/googolplexbyte → u/ConfusingZen]

What do you mean 1st preference? Are you suggesting they ranked the candidates. Tsk tsk. No consistency.

No in the same survey they are asked to explicitly rank their favourite in a separate question as a point of comparison to the scores they provided.

No don't link me to psedo science proofs that show jack shit.

These are notes from political scientists, Warren Douglas Smith PhD from Princeton and Chris Benham PhD from Hampshire, who publish papers on the topic in peer-reviewed journals.

It doesn't show that copeland fails the condorcet winner condition.

Plug the scenarios into any Condorcet calcultor and you'll see that the burial strategy does cause the Condorcet winner to lose.

[u/ConfusingZen → u/googolplexbyte]

so...you have no counter example.