How Instant Runoff Voting works 2.0: Multiple winners
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 вер 2024
- Video by: Curtis Gilbert and Molly Bloom
When you apply Instant Runoff Voting to an election with multiple winners, things get complicated. Voters still rank their choices 1, 2, 3, etc., but figuring out the winners requires long division. Minneapolis elections officials will have to use math like this to figure out who will sit on its Park Board seats and the Board of Estimate and Taxation. The vote counting, which must be done by hand, is expected to take weeks.
To call this system Instant Runoff when when it is actually Single Transferable Vote which is a proportional representation system is confusing. Many of those comments don't get that you are talking about a council rather than a single post like a mayor or President.
The quota for a single winner is just the same as IRV, and in fact this is exactly what happens for the presidency of Ireland and in special elections in case of a vacancy (unless two vacancies in the same district happen which is rare), it's technically using the droop quota and the exact same transfer system, but it ends up only having one winner.
Exactly, whether you call it STV, IRV or AV, they're all just variants of the same system.
What happens when there are 17 candidates? Too many choices. Voter fatigue. And how to understand this method? I think approval is easier to understand. I am new to this.
@@laurakondrick1635 That's too many choices for approval, too. That's why we're seeing Top 4 or 5 make it through the primary, and then the general election is RCV with those 4 or 5 in the running.
I see a lot of people not getting thecpoint here. Of course when applied to single post elections, this system reduces to IRV just the same, but it's definitely not IRV and in a very specific way too. See, STV is proportional, whereas IRV majoritarian: what the majority wants is what you get. IRV could also be extended to multiple posts in a majoritarian fashion, so if 55% wants to elect A, B and C, while 45% wants to elect D, E, and F, you get A, B and C, while under STV you'd get A, D and B. To achieve this it's sinply a case of handling everything as an IRV election for each post in order, then run the whole count with the same or identical ballots as if the already elected candidate has been eliminated, untill you have filled each post.
this is brilliant. The single-winner made sense anyway. *this*, however, is finally a visualization I understand. Although the fractions are admittedly strange.
I feel better able to explain this to someone else.
Go send this to all of the other people you know in ST PAUL! Make sure they understand what they are voting for.
And if you need this video to understand how do you think the typical voter can understand this? I am still confused.
It is truly brilliant👩🏻🏫good teachers too
[1:26 wowwwwwwwww
i didn't think there would be anyone better than CGP grey - and while his videos explain more the "why" it is good, or needed etc; this is much much _much_ better explanation of the "how" the counting is done.
True
This is an excelent video describing the STV voting model. Would it maybe be possible to change the title from "How Instant Runoff Voting works 2.0: Multiple winners" as this is actually not the case.
This video could be shared more widely if the title was "How STV Voting works: Multiple unordered winners with a proportional representation"
fuck i was voting green
Hmm.. I think it still needs a bit of refinining. What happens if all the other voters put orange as their 2nd choice. (i.e he is good as a supporting MP and we like him, but let me vote for my other guy first) Also psychologically the order the candidates appear in the ballot sheet may influence the order of the votes hence the candidate appearing near or at the bottom of the ballot sheet may get less first choice votes, especially if the voters don't have strong opinion for/against the choice
There is a great alternative approach to STV (the system described here), which ensures that the winners as-a-group represent people the best. It is Proportional Approval Voting: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_approval_voting
I was less confused, BEFORE the video
Yea they did a pretty terrible job explaining things like the target of the vote (a target of 3 winners, not things just happening to have 3 winners) and the whys of it all. It's like looking at an answer without being given the question.
What if there are 2 or 3 out of 4 candidates having won the same fewest votes in the first counting? In this case which candidate should be eliminated?
this is a good question, I was wondering myself. Though with much larger numbers of voters in a real election the chances of an exact tie seem extreamly unlikely.
Hey you're here too
Also known as "Ranked Choice Voting" and "Single Transferable Vote".
No. Ranked Choice refers to many different methods, many of which provide quite different outcomes from the Single Transferable Vote, and it's important not to conflate the two
@@Ramzuiv What are the other Ranked Choice voting methods that aren't Single Transferable Vote?
Why isn't this method used for all elections in the US where you need to elect more than one person, like the US House (for most states anyway)?
This would be my vote.
[ ] Orange
[2] Green
[1] Blue
[3] Yellow
[ ] Purple
Great
How do you apply RCV to the US Presidential primary? I could see a couple of ways to do it. I could see a couple of ways to do it, but I'm not sure if they would achieve the desired results. I'd love to see examples.
I’m more confused now than I was before I watched this video! Fu$k!!
Why is 1/4 the level at which it's impossible for a colour to lose??
If orange gets 9 votes, it's still possible for green to get 27 votes - so I don't understand... can someone explain?
Three winners are required. The finishing line is 1/4 plus 1 - that is 10. When 3 candidates have all got 10 votes there can't be more than 6 votes left.
Apparently there are different ways to determine the cut-off; this one is called the Droop Quota (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droop_quota). If the quota is too low, you might end up with more winners than there are seats in the election. The Droop quota is the smallest quota that guarantees the correct number of winners.
I recommend the wikipedia article on "Single Transferrable Vote".
Technically any greater than 0 decimal number can be added to the Hagenbach-Bischoff quota and you can be assured that if the election needed n number of winners that not more than n number of candidates can win.
See the distinctions between the Hagenbach-Bischoff quota and the Droop quota here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagenbach-Bischoff_quota
How does one get a copy of this and the other on for one position? This is the best short and sweet demonstration of this that I have yet seen. Postinotes! Pure Genious.
*Post-It
*Genius
Chase the rainbow 🌈 gun
you are very adorable
This confusing system puts he onus on the voter to predict the outcome of elections. Also, if done like Alaska you essentially are forced to vote for EVERY candidate, including those you can’t stand. If you don’t vote for everyone, your ballot is thrown out entirely. Elections should be one person, one vote. Simple.
That's not true. On www.elections.alaska.gov/election-information/#RankedChoice the state:
- What happens if I only vote for one candidate?
- Your vote is counted in round one and your vote stays with your candidate throughout tabulation.
It’s interesting too
Krist Novoselic Likes Your Vide ; )!!!
The bassist from Nirvana?
@@DanB-sh3wt Yup yup! I got here cause of him, 9 years ago lol.
Interesting...
Why would you need multiple winners? I thought the purpose of IRV is to select one winner from several candidates? Maybe I'm wrong? Please explain.
There are some elections where multiple winners are being chosen. In my city we used to have a ward system where two councillors were selected for each ward. In my organization our board members represent districts and each district has multiple representatives. Typically more than one district rep position is up for election at a time. We use a simplified version* of this method in those elections. I'm currently writing software to count the votes and determine winners.
*We don't set a threshold or redistribute excess votes. We just keep eliminating until the required number of candidates is left.
An election is much more proportional if you have multiple winners. IRV, at best, can only represent half plus one, any more votes and they can't go to anyone else even if you gets loads of support, and the up to 49% who don't have a seat, they get nothing, even if in combination with the votes from other districts, could win multiple seats. You can see the difference in the Australian House or Representatives vs their Senate, where the Senate, using multi winner ranked choice (also called STV) much closer to proportionality than with the latter than the House, which uses IRV. Ireland's political parties come very close, within a few percentage points, of their actual vote totals nation wide thanks to this system, even without using a party list system at all like most propotional systems do (and Americans tend to be very fearful of party lists, I don't like them that much although I'd take it over the current system).
It's like for city council, or congress. This is the best way to elect groups of people.
@@William-the-Guy although there are many congress members elected at the same time, they are all individual races with a single winner in each race. Each race having different voters.
Colton, I am not sure why I was tagged in this conversation, but ignore Ian, what he said was not true. The multi-winner system does not have each district separate it combines districts so that 4 or 5 winners are selected from the same district. This is an improvement over the current system because it allows groups of voters who represent less than half of the population to still be represented in congress. That leads to more diversity. Often we will have other political parties besides the 2 ones major win seats. It also leads to more racial diversity and it has the side effect of mostly eliminated gerrymandering. I spend a lot of time volunteering for this cause, multi-winner RCV is an important and valuable reform.
1/6th Cannot runoff if blue was within 3/6ths... do the math squared within tides, not possible.
This is a great explanation! Thanks!
Are you high???
Is this multi-winner IRV or is this just STV? I didn't think IRV transferred votes past the needed threshold. If not and this is just STV, what even is multi-winner IRV?
This is STV indeed. There is no such thing as multi-winner IRV, but it is one extension of IRV to allow for multiple winners, others also exist.
Should you get to put n options as 1st when there are going to be n winners? This way, you'll always have the same number of votes that there are candidates that will win at the end, providing you put enough candidates on the ballot.
Giving people multiple votes like that would actually ruin the system, by allowing a bare majority of the voters to sweep the entire council if they voted for the same slate of candidates, and giving 49% of the voters no representation at all. The whole point of multi-winner districts is to ensure that representation is fair, giving e.g. 30% of the seats to a faction of voters that is 30% of the population.
***** Borda counts have the distinct problem of not all votes being equal. How much is a 1st, 2nd or 3rd place worth? These arbitrary values may lead to massive distortions. Approval is pretty bad too, since it allows some voters more votes than others and can be subject to tactical voting. Condorcet methods can result in a paradox where no one wins.
personall I favour the D'Hondt method of vote counting.
Narau method Borda count has a single answer to that problem, the 1st place is worth 1, the second place 1/2, the third place 1/3, etc.
Approval voting isn't the only option from the cardinal systems, score voting is pretty good, and in fact if there is only one winner to be selected for a group of equals (like federal senate elections in the US) then it is something I very much want. It is also useful for positions where consensus is useful to have, like how many in the US are actually voting for many judicial positions. You don't want antagonism with those elections, as a judge is supposed to judge everyone the same.
Also, the D'Hondt system slightly favours large parties, a slightly modified Sainte Lague method or even unmodified Sainte Lague produces more proportional results, which especially given that a party list system will almost always have a relatively local seat system with maybe 5-15 members in some of the smaller districts, this would be very important to choose. Of course you might think larger parties are better and think they lead to stabler coalitions.
It's STV not IRV.
Depends on count of winners.
Is there a similar system for multiple candidates running for multiple positions? For our student government we could have multiple people running for both president and treasurer (and other positions). I figure that candidates could rank their position preference and voters could rank their candidate preferences for each position. Is there an optimal, fair way to conduct this, or is it too difficult?
+Stephen Lauer Yes.
+Adam Guymon Neat! Is there a place that I can check that out? UA-cam/GitHub/academic paper?
What about the color blind?? This is racist, in black and white.
So orange was out early, but may actually have more support than blue from now rejected green voters.
This is why IRV fails the favorite betrayal criterion. Voting for your true favorite (green) first, may cause your compromise (Orange) to get wiped out. So IRV is unfortunately not monotonic. Better to use approval voting, or PAV, where voting for your true favorite will not harm them.
Why would you eliminate people even after purple has won? If someone won, whoop de doo. No one needs to recount votes after that, because there is a winner.
the point is that they are voting for THREE winners not just one
Links to anti-IRV arguments: wp.me/p23U97-dD
Scary stuff. Imagine what would have happened with this type of voting procedure for the 1992 presidential election.
probably nothing, but we'll never know. studies show that perot took votes equally from bust and clinton.
Can anyone see these diagrams and still seriously think IRV is an answer? zesty.ca/voting/sim/
Krist Novoselic sent me here. But I still don't get it.