To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/Viks . You’ll also get 20% off an annual premium subscription. Sorry about the reupload but thank you for everyone who pointed out the visual issues in the original. I hope you enjoy :D
@@dustykh I only know the one about burgers, where Americans couldn't understand why third-pound burgers should be just as expensive as quarter-pound burgers. (This really happened.)
@@KaiHenningsencontext: when burger king released a 1/3 lb burger to compete with McDonald's 1/4 lb burger, it flopped because Americans thought 1/4 was bigger
The funny thing is I did something similar recently. There was some class party thing where the teacher classed me with polling what was the most liked food. We had a choice between sushi pizza and bbq I really wanted sushi to win so I rigged the poll. I added “any sushi” “veggie pizza” “meat pizza” “any pizza” and “sweet bbq” “spicy bbq” and “any bbq” sushi won but by a very small margin so it would have lost if I didn’t rig the poll. So from that I learned in democracy to win you don’t need to convince everyone you just need to make the other options lose. Only like 35% people wanted sushi and all the others were really upset but I was the one who oversaw the vote and the one who profited off it so I was happy
When i was in school, they had us to decide what would be the food, since i knew most (if not all) of the people behind me in the class List, if i votes for my favorite food, then my least favorite food would have won, so i decided to go for my second favorite, since it was with more votes, and it won by ONE, 1
"let's imagine you have friends" Ok, not too hard, I remember what that's like, easy peasy lemon squeazy "and let's imagine you actually want to hang out with them" oh goddamnit
In politics, this is only actually a thing if we consider multiple parties to begin with. In systems that have voting in other ways, such as directly voting for policies, a party won't really be required to just set it themselves, but rather be directly tied to the population. The Biggest Hurdle would be the execution of how votings for policies would be made in the first place, and policies on how people who make them, can't abuse them for their own benefit.
13:57 It is also known as Ranked Choice Voting. My favorite voting system is Star Voting. You give each candidate a rating from 0 stars to 5 stars. It fixes the issue with RCV mentioned earlier in the video where a person may dislike 2 different candidates equally.
The nomenclature around these types of methods is very confused .The form demonstrated above is called Instant Runoff in the USA, Alternative Vote in the UK, and Preferential Vote in Australia. Ranked Choice is also used as a general term for any system where choices are ranked, however they're counted (which is what makes thedifference). It's a mess.
Alaskan here: it was recently implemented in this state. I am a poor worker. Everybody hates it. It’s allowing a politician installed by nepotism to maintain their position.
Eh, rankes choice voting has a lot of its own problems and isnt much better than plurality voting. I think score voting and STAR voting are much better.
STV is a great alternative. It does mean redrawing boundaries a bit or something but the way it works is by allowing everyone's vote to be used. So basically everyone has at least somewhat chosen the parties in charge. Its hard to gerrymander it since well you can't really force an outcome when the people end up choosing 5 or 6 candidates to represent them so its better to win people over to your side. You also can decide who gets in. Like in Northern Ireland where this is done for the local assembly you can chose to vote for let's say 2 DUP members you trust, 1 UUP member & then something like Alliance & the greens for the bottom for example. Now there is usually 6 DUP candidates for each area but you are likely not to agree with every member of a party. By doing this you allow a more representative & liked system as you have more control on not just the parties in charge but the people in charge. I however must mention that it doesn't work well in Northern Ireland due to the fact that our political parties are a bunch of children who like to abuse powersharing to get their way leaving us with no government but that's a problem with the power sharing government system & the leadership of Sinn Fein & the DUP & not the STV system. On the topic of Northern Ireland I can point out another problem or benefit with FPTP which is a kinda voting decision where you decide to go against you own political beliefs & vote for a party you disagree with because you want to ensure somebody stays in that parties leadership as you believe its better than letting the more well the DUP has a bunch of people in it who are old & very power abusive so I know some people in east belfast let Alliance lose despite agree with them more to ensure Gavin Robinson remains in the parties leadership & try & keep a government. This can exist better in STV but I'd feel like it can't work in AV because you can't chose a party you agree with more because you don't want this person in particular to lose. The main benefit of STV, AV, FPTP that more proportional systems have is that you have local representation. Most people would prefer to have a MP that they can rely on to help them when they need it than have a party in power that they agree with because well the party can start ruining the country like the Tories did despite many agreeing with them which is why they lost so many votes but its like that they kept most of the seats they had due to people who may not have agreed with the party liking the MP in the area. Proportional systems usually end up giving the parties the power to decide their elected members meaning you end up with only senior leadership even if they have become disliked by the majority of the voters because they hold all the power & you lose younger & more liked members because the party doesn't care about them. MMP is a half way point as it has this with FPTP I'd say MMP is better than AV because the 1st thing I mentioned in this tangent wouldn't be a problem if you could chose the party you like but know that the man you voted for is likely to win without the 2nd choice skewing the result.
@jonat012 I'm happy that some people get the joke too lol. I wasn't sure if it would be a missed joke but it looks like there is a good overlap between old cgp gray viewers and mine xD
As an Australian, with my own national baises, I'm a huge fan of the run-off voting system. Also a fan of our mandatory voting laws, so parties can't try mean tricks to stop or disenfranchise people from voting. I like the sound of the british laws restricting political campaigning to only a few weeks before the election. I assume that would help politicians be a bit more productive and it looks a bit exhausting in the usa where they campaign for nearly a year before hand. Having one house determend by geographic representations and the other determined by total vote counts helps mitigate a bit of representation bias while allowing regionally related groups to not be drowned out by the majority. Though from what I've heard, most countries have some sort of similar two house system. As you say, no voting system is perfect, but I'm pretty happy with Australia's.
I would prefer Approval Voting (Vote for as many candidates as you want, most votes wins). Instant Runoff has generally lead to two party systems where it has been implemented (like in Australia), and has the problem of avoiding options which might be a great compromise but which get few first-place votes, as well as still having a problem of favorite betrayal sometimes. Approval Voting fixes these issues, and elects the Condorcet winner at a Nash Equilibrium of strategy.
I feel like a better system would just be one that doesn't rely on giving Power to parties, but moreso having most of the decisions be directly voted on (if possible). This can't obviously be done for everything, but it would certainly help a lot, even just as an addition.
@@RealQuarlie This is why Canada's citizen's assemblies on specific issues is a great way to try and break through partisan deadlock or conflict of interest between voters and politicians. If they could be citizen initiated like ballot initiatives are, that would be phenomenal.
@@RealQuarlie honestly, as good as it might sound, u don’t think such a system would lead to favorable outcomes. In the corporate world it’s fairly obvious that projects that garner the least amount of disapproval end up much worse than projects that have a strong overall vision that’s rigorously enforced
Approval voting still has a spoiler effect, because if 2 of your choices are close, it is strategic to NOT vote for the one you like least out of the two, because you want to give your favorite the best chance. Essentially devolving back into the single-vote system. I recommend the STAR voting system!
@katyungodly In star voting it is optimal to put 5 stars on all good enough candidates and 0 stars on others to maximize your chances of getting a good enough candidate devolving back into approval voting
What we need to do is give each person a rating system which allows them to rate each candidate and thus creates an individualized utility function for the preferences of each voter.
My fav voting system is the one where people can vote multiple times, so the winner is the one in which the most people find acceptable, (from cgp gray)
@@Resetium It's still possible to strategically vote. Best is approval - you vote "yes" or "no" for everyone, and the winner is the one with the most yeses. Really simple, and really fair.
0:37 i know it's an example but each of them could buy their prefered food then join up in a park with it An other solution is proportional, 3/5 want tacos so we eat tacos 60% of times next meet up, 20% burger 20% times pizza, rotation is important in politics too
I will say: Firstly, the example in the beginning was a great simple explanation of the dilemma between approval and majority rule, so well done. Secondly, the Condorcet Cycle section maybe could have used some more explanation about what voting behavior causes it? Other than that it was a good video, although I do feel that we sometimes leave it too theoretical, rather than comparing more voting systems to determine what we actually should implement (or at least inform the viewer about the options).
Where I come from, it is customary to discuss instead of to vote whenever possible. With discussion, it is easier to decide an option that everyone happy with. In the worst case that a minority still doesn't happy with it, they still can be offered/demand a concession so that they wouldn't be as upset as voting. The largest discussion I've seen is between 29 people and they seem to be happy with the result.
@vanish7744 that's the more realistic solution to the problem that normal people would use. There actually is a major downside which is that usually a small, vocal minority will usually end up making the choice. Quieter, less vocal people will end up being pushed out of the conversation so they would really get a say. This is if we are being really pedantic but in general, your system is way easier.
I co-founded a non-profit in the US that educates people on various voting reforms, and I loved your video! My only criticism would be that the portrayal of Instant Runoff Voting is a bit rosy. IRV is definitely better than FPP, but I tend to describe it as “the worst of all the better options”. A lot of the advocates/organizations that promote IRV oversell the benefits and ignore the flaws. Be In reality, RCV still manifests the Spoiler effect, it’s just detectable under different conditions. It still tends towards 2 party system; it’s debatably slower, but overall it doesn’t change the mathematical conditions that drive towards a two party system. And every system is vulnerable to tactical voting, IRV included, it just looks different in practice. And then there’s monotonicity...... 😬 If you’re interested, I’d be happy to jump on a Zoom call or something and BS about pros/cons of IRV and possibly introduce you to other reforms like STAR, Approval, Borda, etc.
Not necessarily, there could easily be more sides, as shown in the video. But that wouldn't really matter, all you'd need is to account for those sides too.
funnily enough a few days after you releasing this video Veritasium released a video (indeed longer than 15 minutes) proving there can't be a perfect voting system
IRV is better than First Past the Post, but it still has some major flaws. In fact, it actually still has all the flaws on the chart at 15:20, just to a lesser extent than FPP. It also has the problem that you can actually harm a candidate by voting for them, which even FPP doesn't have, though the problems with FPP are worse overall.
I co-founded a non-profit in the US that educates people on various voting reforms, and I endorse this message. IRV is definitely better than FPP, but I tend to describe it as “the worst of all the better options”. A lot of the advocates/organizations that promote IRV/RCV oversell the benefits and ignore the flaws.
@butlazgazempropan-butan11k87 tbf I also think the system is so dumb but the thing is that the UK and US both suffer from this effect. There are reasons why it is used but there are a lot more reason to not use it and switch to a newer system.
Instant Runoff also has the advantage that it can be modified, without a whole lot of fuss, to a system where one district has more than one representative. This solves another major problem - in any district with just one representative, as much as just less than half the population in the district has its voice erased in the next level of the hierarchy with the system. With, say, four representatives, minorities as small as just over 20% will be represented.
This appears to not accoint for the primary process in U.S. political system (which removes the second choices people would want/have). Like all your variations of Pizzas would be removed in the primary process and only one pizza would go to the general election.
The solution to Gerrymandering is... not allow Mr. Gerry to actually form the districts, now advise the Republicans on how to draw districts which favour their party. But, that option has long since passed. RIH Gerry, RIH. The true solution is to prevent the _politicians_ from deciding how the districts are drawn _and_ there are multiple political parties (at least 3) for the voters to choose from. This creates a situation where each district is different. Some will have a majority voting for X/Y/Z, others have the majority split between X and Y, and a minority in which the votes are equally split between X, Y, and Z. Sure, it sucks if you live in a district in which your voting pattern is the minority, but that feeling is going to be shared across the nation/territory/province/state/etc, and will even out, more or less.
Gerrymandering is done by elected officials unless they or the people legislate the power. If you don't trust the elected officials to gerrymander then why do you trust them to legislate?
You might have heard about this by now but Veritasium has put out a video strikingly similar to this, including the example of taking your friends to dinner and voting on sushi, pizza, or burgers. Not sure if this is just a stereotypical example but after the discussion of Condorcet and properties of a rational voting system I got quite a bit of deja vu. Good video here by the way!
Score vote 0 to 5 Vs Score vote -3 to +3 Note these are actually different things. People who have no preference will always vote 0 most of the time bit if we shift the score to the left we allow peole to vote afainst something with -3 while previously it w8uld have been just 0. I would love to see video about this.
"This [the spoiler effect] is probably single-handedly the biggest issue with elections in the US and the UK" No way. For the UK sure fair enough. Their last election just had like 14% of the vote convert to 1% of seats (and that 14% was likely massively lower than it would be due to strategic voting). It's also the case for Canada where the NDP (generally more left) cannibalizes some of the Liberal vote (center left). But the US? I don't think practically any significant vote bleeding happens from independents. US got a bunch of other problems like electoral college and winner takes all making it come down to just a few swing states each election (like what a seriously weird system). The winner takes all seats (at state level) makes it so its incredibly unlikely any third party could ever rise as well in the US, but that's not the same as third parties currently cannibalizing votes. First past the post systems are stupid in general for multi party systems. UK and Canada are both examples of how massively these systems fail to reflect the preferences of voters. UK really recently and Canada especially in the past 80s and 90s. Systems which count additional preferences of voters allow new parties to have a better chance at gaining momentum, allow one issue voters to have some influence and in general require politicians to actually cater to the issues voters care about lest they lose votes to parties that will. It's a downright shame to see FPTP in some of the countries which would benefit the most from a different system. Off topic, but how did you get a Brilliant sponsor with 7k subs? And you have a surprisingly fleshed out team you're crediting for such a small youtube channel. As someone who's been curious about content creation I'm curious how your journey went for that.
@das6109 That is a completely fair point to be honest. I live in the UK so I don't really know US politics as well although I do know some of the basics. The reason I say the spoiler effect was so major is because it prevents a third party from ever even emerging. Any time we have fptp, voting systems tend to what you guys have where it is literally just two parties and I would have to think that is because of the spoiler effect. Once the spoiler effect has done that to a country, then I see how there are some other larger issues which take place but that wad my reasoning I guess but that is a really interesting point so thanks for sharing. Also I tend to only make videos when I have some spare time since it is incredibly time-consuming although I don't have a team and all the animations and drawing are me although me and a couple of friends will skim through for flaws at the very end just incase. I am looking to possibly get some other people to help me since its probably like 100 hours a video right now but we will see lol. Hope you have a nice day :D
@@viks3864 That's also a fair argument that the spoiler effect is the reason for the two party system, but it misses a bit of why the US in particular is so deeply entrenched in a two party system compared to other countries with FPTP systems like the UK or Canada. The US winner takes all system means to get any representation you have to get the majority of votes in your state. Once a party in a state gets a majority of the vote they on a federal level get the political power equivalent to winning every riding in that state. This is why the US has so called 'swing states'. These are the only states where there's a chance of both parties winning and as a result these are the only states where voters actually need to be appealed to or on some level matter in the election result. US has individual states with populations in the ballpark of Spain that you don't even need to really campaign in because the majority will vote red (Cali) or blue (Texas) and that majority will decide 100% of the ridings in that 30mil pop. FPTP is punishing because you don't just need to convert a high number of voters, you need to convert a high percentage of the vote in particular ridings. The US extends this concept, but to the level where many of the individual ridings are essentially as large as countries in Europe. Which is imo why they never moved past two party systems where most FPTP systems have even if they started as two party systems and took a long time for any others to emerge as viable. Another angle of the issue is just how stupidly expensive campaign efforts in the US are and how there's no cap on spending (2024 is expected to cost ~$10 billion). It's unsurprising that the independent candidate who got closest to winning an American election in the last hundred years (Ross Perot 1992) was a billionaire who financed the majority of his campaign. It's also unsurprising that despite having 20% of the vote compared to the winning party's 42% he received exactly 0 seats. Yep the US is pretty silly. The time you spent on the animations and example definitely show. It looks very polished! I only disagreed with that one line and thought I'd point out some stuff about it, but as you correctly defended it's not really even an incorrect line, and expanding beyond it wouldn't really be in scope for the video. Sorry for the rambling it's just a topic of interest (admittedly I'm not even murican). Still wondering about the Brilliant sponsorship though. Is it something you can pitch from them?
It's a very narrow look on voting systems tbh. You can solve most of the problems via a vote in which every party gets seats in parliaments based on the popular vote. And if you're asking for a head of state than the people in the parliment can choose one of their peers via an coalition. If you still want local representation you can even do that by including a second vote for an local representative who gets one of the seats of their party via the first vote.
Electing representatives in proportion to their first choice approval is not possible by assumption because we want a single winner; it'd be like sending some people get pizza and others get taco. It's a good option, but it's not always possible (because having a supreme authority or unity of will is often beneficial in general). Also, it still falls prey to the spoiler effect. As for using the representatives to elect the head of state, what you say is just a non-answer; what voting system do they use? Likewise, how do the local representatives elect the party representatives (nevermind that increasing the layers displays several problematic properties)?
@@momom6197you know what, that’s a good point. Why should we be so concerned about a single party government? Coalition governments are a pain but they are more democratic than two dominant parties fighting over the entire electorate.
@@momom6197 How is there still a spoiler effect? The voting system that the representatives use is just majority decision. If no candidate gets a majority in the first round of voting, nothing happens. They can have a moment where politics happens and then they try again. Party representatives can be selected the same way they are now: have a primary where party members vote, whoever gets the most votes gets the first spot on the list and so on. You can leave this whole thing up to the parties.
Why do you seem to state gerrymandering is only when there is a manipulation by the majority? Why wouldn't it be both? There are plenty of cases where the minority does it to increase their representation.
@viccitude That might have been lost in the way I explained it but you are right, Gerrymandering is from both sides and I might have made that more confusing than it needs to be.
Isn't the whole point that the combination of FPTP and strategic voting inevitably leads to a two-party system, which necessarily means there can't be a spoiler effect like in a multi-party system?
11:59 Treat top row as 3 points middle 2 bottom 1 and all 3 shapes get the same score. So could just straightnup call this one a tie... 15:34 Two options two voters who each choose different, you can't "system" your way out of that one. Condorcet is a complicated form of tie.
@@SikerGaming just take the 2 canditates with the most votes and do a runoff, the president can only nominate the prime minister, if the proportionally elected parliament doesn't approve it can't do anything, in the end the prime minister and the government matter, so it isn't a big problem
@ATOM-vv3xu its mainly because they tend to be easier to run. For example in this example it would be unrealistic to go and buy every possible food but in a lot of things single winner is easy. Also considering how bad single winner is for politics and democracy, its crazy that its still used in three of the world's biggest countries being Canada, the US and UK. I do agree single winner is bad but there are uses to it though
@@SikerGaming yes and presidential elections are also not useful because presidential democracies are clearly worse than parliamentary democracies and both don't work well together.
Just use the Minimax Condorcet method. It solves the Condorcet criteria by always electing the Condorcet winner if there is no cycle. It has all the best features of a voting system. And sure it doesn't have independence of alternatives, but who cares about that one?
Im not very sure that veritasium intended to put out a video on the same topic, using the same examples, within the same week as this one you created, but it really bums me out because this video was a fantastic explanation of why ranked choice voting systems aren't quite fair (although more fair than our current , single choice one). Either way, a bigger channel covering the same topic will often overshadow the smaller channel, just due to the social media algorithm and people already beiing subscribers of the other channel.
@tylerduncan5908 yeah it really is quite unfortunate :(. The videos really are quite similar in premise and execution and even title. The views genuinely have dropped drastically and way faster than usual for this video and I think his video may have been a factor. I'm glad you liked it and I appreciate the feedback
There were so many hardliners in Iran's election that the spoiler effect meant the government's favorite didn't win
17 днів тому
In most countries they just use second election turn, where two candidates with most votes, run against eachother. And there is also proportional representation for parliment - where every party gets amount of representatives equal to the total vote percentage (more or less).
Different voting systems often seem less exploitable because people have had a lot less time and spend a lot less effort trying to figure out how to exploit them
I’m a fan of rather than asking what option people prefer to instead ask what they wouldn’t mind, and then pick the option the most people are ok with.
I am not living in France or have any connection to it but many of these tactics I kind of see there. And I do not talk about one vote but the last 2 or 3 legislations. Having 3 right wing options so that they split their votes and miss the majority? Check. Having the majority of votes overall but the representatives are not from this party due to regional voting patterns? Check. (Gerrymandering) Using tactical voting to supress the right party from winning? Check.
you pretend like there is only first past the post and instant runoff. but there are systems that are strictly better than both of them: score voting and approval voting.
@@viks3864 i'm not a graphics designer, but I advice experimenting with the outer border, if you fill the sape in in. Maybe leave a small gap between the filled in part and the outline.
@davethesid8960 lol yeah arrows is a really interesting idea but something I knew I wouldn't have time to get into. Its a good read for anyone who wants more info
To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/Viks . You’ll also get 20% off an annual premium subscription.
Sorry about the reupload but thank you for everyone who pointed out the visual issues in the original. I hope you enjoy :D
and it still was/is a fantastic video
I had to stop the video at "imagine you have friends" it was too hard
same its actually one of the unsolved problems in maths
@@viks3864never has finding x y and z been so hard
@@viks3864
Pfff. I have friends, so it is easy to imagine this.
I just don't visit them that often.
@@viks3864 Are those spherical friends?
@@viks3864 honestly, for you, you could stop at the first word "imagine"
As an American, I'm definitely choosing Burger for this upcoming election.
the Hawaiian or Spicy one?
Theres a joke about Taco voters here
@@dustykh I only know the one about burgers, where Americans couldn't understand why third-pound burgers should be just as expensive as quarter-pound burgers. (This really happened.)
The hamburgler will steal the election...
@@KaiHenningsencontext: when burger king released a 1/3 lb burger to compete with McDonald's 1/4 lb burger, it flopped because Americans thought 1/4 was bigger
The funny thing is I did something similar recently. There was some class party thing where the teacher classed me with polling what was the most liked food. We had a choice between sushi pizza and bbq I really wanted sushi to win so I rigged the poll. I added “any sushi” “veggie pizza” “meat pizza” “any pizza” and “sweet bbq” “spicy bbq” and “any bbq” sushi won but by a very small margin so it would have lost if I didn’t rig the poll. So from that I learned in democracy to win you don’t need to convince everyone you just need to make the other options lose. Only like 35% people wanted sushi and all the others were really upset but I was the one who oversaw the vote and the one who profited off it so I was happy
future dictator
@@lememz where can I apply?
Independent election officials (the teacher) should have maintained fair play methinks.
@@MarkusAldawn,
Yep. This is what happens when the election board is bought and paid for. *Shakes Head*
When i was in school, they had us to decide what would be the food, since i knew most (if not all) of the people behind me in the class List, if i votes for my favorite food, then my least favorite food would have won, so i decided to go for my second favorite, since it was with more votes, and it won by ONE, 1
5:04 Anti triangle alliance 🔛🔝🗣🗣🗣
@@lathurshaanjana864 🔥🔥🔥🗣🗣🗣
Mwahahha
Hold on, is this shape racism?
@@Coreupt7118Our ancestors worked so hard for triangle rights and now look at the modern generation smh
@@Coreupt7118 No, it’s shapism. Completely different, far worse actually.
the conclusion is very good. Been too reliant on blackmail recently
@@Youcanatme always good to have a backup plan
The clear explanation to such an intimidating topic delivered so eloquently is absolutely insane.
I guess we're voting for circles now
"let's imagine you have friends"
Ok, not too hard, I remember what that's like, easy peasy lemon squeazy
"and let's imagine you actually want to hang out with them"
oh goddamnit
@TheRenaSystem yeah this entire video is hypothetical since we all know the first two steps are impossible.
Based pfp
In politics, this is only actually a thing if we consider multiple parties to begin with. In systems that have voting in other ways, such as directly voting for policies, a party won't really be required to just set it themselves, but rather be directly tied to the population. The Biggest Hurdle would be the execution of how votings for policies would be made in the first place, and policies on how people who make them, can't abuse them for their own benefit.
13:57 It is also known as Ranked Choice Voting.
My favorite voting system is Star Voting. You give each candidate a rating from 0 stars to 5 stars. It fixes the issue with RCV mentioned earlier in the video where a person may dislike 2 different candidates equally.
Instant run off voting is also called ranked choice voting.
The nomenclature around these types of methods is very confused .The form demonstrated above is called Instant Runoff in the USA, Alternative Vote in the UK, and Preferential Vote in Australia. Ranked Choice is also used as a general term for any system where choices are ranked, however they're counted (which is what makes thedifference). It's a mess.
Yes, unfortunately. The Name 'Ranked Choice' doesn't distinguish Instant Runoff from any of hte other ranked systems.
instant run off is a type of ranked choice voting. once all votes are in, there are many ways to determine a winner.
Alaskan here: it was recently implemented in this state. I am a poor worker. Everybody hates it.
It’s allowing a politician installed by nepotism to maintain their position.
@@frankyanish4833 Which one do you have in mind?
Great video :D. I'm glad someone is finally talking about the fact that triangles are corrupt.
Veritasium felt inspired after seeing this.
Approval voting is the better method for a vote like this though, I sure hope you're not doing instant runoff for where to eat dinner
A party in my country is literally running with the name "None of those" (translation) and it was ruled to be legal.
The best option for everything
Eh, rankes choice voting has a lot of its own problems and isnt much better than plurality voting. I think score voting and STAR voting are much better.
STAR voting! I've been trying to change people's minds about ranked-choice when I learned about STAR voting.
STV is a great alternative. It does mean redrawing boundaries a bit or something but the way it works is by allowing everyone's vote to be used. So basically everyone has at least somewhat chosen the parties in charge. Its hard to gerrymander it since well you can't really force an outcome when the people end up choosing 5 or 6 candidates to represent them so its better to win people over to your side. You also can decide who gets in. Like in Northern Ireland where this is done for the local assembly you can chose to vote for let's say 2 DUP members you trust, 1 UUP member & then something like Alliance & the greens for the bottom for example. Now there is usually 6 DUP candidates for each area but you are likely not to agree with every member of a party. By doing this you allow a more representative & liked system as you have more control on not just the parties in charge but the people in charge. I however must mention that it doesn't work well in Northern Ireland due to the fact that our political parties are a bunch of children who like to abuse powersharing to get their way leaving us with no government but that's a problem with the power sharing government system & the leadership of Sinn Fein & the DUP & not the STV system.
On the topic of Northern Ireland I can point out another problem or benefit with FPTP which is a kinda voting decision where you decide to go against you own political beliefs & vote for a party you disagree with because you want to ensure somebody stays in that parties leadership as you believe its better than letting the more well the DUP has a bunch of people in it who are old & very power abusive so I know some people in east belfast let Alliance lose despite agree with them more to ensure Gavin Robinson remains in the parties leadership & try & keep a government. This can exist better in STV but I'd feel like it can't work in AV because you can't chose a party you agree with more because you don't want this person in particular to lose. The main benefit of STV, AV, FPTP that more proportional systems have is that you have local representation. Most people would prefer to have a MP that they can rely on to help them when they need it than have a party in power that they agree with because well the party can start ruining the country like the Tories did despite many agreeing with them which is why they lost so many votes but its like that they kept most of the seats they had due to people who may not have agreed with the party liking the MP in the area. Proportional systems usually end up giving the parties the power to decide their elected members meaning you end up with only senior leadership even if they have become disliked by the majority of the voters because they hold all the power & you lose younger & more liked members because the party doesn't care about them. MMP is a half way point as it has this with FPTP I'd say MMP is better than AV because the 1st thing I mentioned in this tangent wouldn't be a problem if you could chose the party you like but know that the man you voted for is likely to win without the 2nd choice skewing the result.
I thought the title said “Magically rigging and election” 🤣🤣🤣
I lost it when you said just imagine if you had "friends". I couldnt imagine them...
I love politics and men
@sninja332 thanks for the input big man. Sage as always
Literally me
Relatable
twinsies
same
Jaiden Redshirts!
4:59 i’m surprised someone remembers this joke
@jonat012 I'm happy that some people get the joke too lol. I wasn't sure if it would be a missed joke but it looks like there is a good overlap between old cgp gray viewers and mine xD
Is this why the incumbent seems to be more likely to win since they aren’t running a primary while the challenger is?
Thx for the advice, time to put this to action
As an Australian, with my own national baises, I'm a huge fan of the run-off voting system. Also a fan of our mandatory voting laws, so parties can't try mean tricks to stop or disenfranchise people from voting.
I like the sound of the british laws restricting political campaigning to only a few weeks before the election. I assume that would help politicians be a bit more productive and it looks a bit exhausting in the usa where they campaign for nearly a year before hand.
Having one house determend by geographic representations and the other determined by total vote counts helps mitigate a bit of representation bias while allowing regionally related groups to not be drowned out by the majority. Though from what I've heard, most countries have some sort of similar two house system.
As you say, no voting system is perfect, but I'm pretty happy with Australia's.
I would prefer Approval Voting (Vote for as many candidates as you want, most votes wins). Instant Runoff has generally lead to two party systems where it has been implemented (like in Australia), and has the problem of avoiding options which might be a great compromise but which get few first-place votes, as well as still having a problem of favorite betrayal sometimes. Approval Voting fixes these issues, and elects the Condorcet winner at a Nash Equilibrium of strategy.
I feel like a better system would just be one that doesn't rely on giving Power to parties, but moreso having most of the decisions be directly voted on (if possible). This can't obviously be done for everything, but it would certainly help a lot, even just as an addition.
@@RealQuarlie This is why Canada's citizen's assemblies on specific issues is a great way to try and break through partisan deadlock or conflict of interest between voters and politicians. If they could be citizen initiated like ballot initiatives are, that would be phenomenal.
@@RealQuarlie honestly, as good as it might sound, u don’t think such a system would lead to favorable outcomes. In the corporate world it’s fairly obvious that projects that garner the least amount of disapproval end up much worse than projects that have a strong overall vision that’s rigorously enforced
Approval voting still has a spoiler effect, because if 2 of your choices are close, it is strategic to NOT vote for the one you like least out of the two, because you want to give your favorite the best chance. Essentially devolving back into the single-vote system. I recommend the STAR voting system!
@katyungodly In star voting it is optimal to put 5 stars on all good enough candidates and 0 stars on others to maximize your chances of getting a good enough candidate devolving back into approval voting
fun fact: fair elections arent possible
STAR voting and score voting get closer than FPTP and ranked-choice at least :)
What we need to do is give each person a rating system which allows them to rate each candidate and thus creates an individualized utility function for the preferences of each voter.
I find it ironic that mathematicians can't even agree on the meaning of "consensus".
My fav voting system is the one where people can vote multiple times, so the winner is the one in which the most people find acceptable, (from cgp gray)
I see instant runoff (or 'ranked choice') as a good implementation of that
Banana republic elections be like
@@Resetium It's still possible to strategically vote. Best is approval - you vote "yes" or "no" for everyone, and the winner is the one with the most yeses. Really simple, and really fair.
it’s brave and admirable to just out yourself as a basic bitch like that, I support you
@@idiocrat3744no??
New and intriguing content as always viks!
0:37 i know it's an example but each of them could buy their prefered food then join up in a park with it
An other solution is proportional, 3/5 want tacos so we eat tacos 60% of times next meet up, 20% burger 20% times pizza, rotation is important in politics too
I will say:
Firstly, the example in the beginning was a great simple explanation of the dilemma between approval and majority rule, so well done.
Secondly, the Condorcet Cycle section maybe could have used some more explanation about what voting behavior causes it?
Other than that it was a good video, although I do feel that we sometimes leave it too theoretical, rather than comparing more voting systems to determine what we actually should implement (or at least inform the viewer about the options).
Can we make this video a mandatory stept of political education
We can, but would the people who benefit from manipulating the masses via ignorance or flawed voting systems _want_ to?
You just explained cgp grey’s entire series in one 15 minute vid, good job!
Where I come from, it is customary to discuss instead of to vote whenever possible. With discussion, it is easier to decide an option that everyone happy with. In the worst case that a minority still doesn't happy with it, they still can be offered/demand a concession so that they wouldn't be as upset as voting. The largest discussion I've seen is between 29 people and they seem to be happy with the result.
@vanish7744 that's the more realistic solution to the problem that normal people would use. There actually is a major downside which is that usually a small, vocal minority will usually end up making the choice. Quieter, less vocal people will end up being pushed out of the conversation so they would really get a say. This is if we are being really pedantic but in general, your system is way easier.
I co-founded a non-profit in the US that educates people on various voting reforms, and I loved your video!
My only criticism would be that the portrayal of Instant Runoff Voting is a bit rosy. IRV is definitely better than FPP, but I tend to describe it as “the worst of all the better options”. A lot of the advocates/organizations that promote IRV oversell the benefits and ignore the flaws. Be
In reality, RCV still manifests the Spoiler effect, it’s just detectable under different conditions. It still tends towards 2 party system; it’s debatably slower, but overall it doesn’t change the mathematical conditions that drive towards a two party system. And every system is vulnerable to tactical voting, IRV included, it just looks different in practice.
And then there’s monotonicity...... 😬
If you’re interested, I’d be happy to jump on a Zoom call or something and BS about pros/cons of IRV and possibly introduce you to other reforms like STAR, Approval, Borda, etc.
One possible trick to gerrymandering:
Have both sides gerrymander, then take the average.
Problem: it assumes that there are only two sides.
@@uis246 There are functionality only 2 sides.
Not necessarily, there could easily be more sides, as shown in the video.
But that wouldn't really matter, all you'd need is to account for those sides too.
How do you vote in 2 eletorates?
@@benshiotsu8553 are you american?
funnily enough a few days after you releasing this video Veritasium released a video (indeed longer than 15 minutes) proving there can't be a perfect voting system
solution: shopping malls often have food courts with multiple different restaurants in the same place
Nice joke with the beastagons
@@mat-hu5ys I'm glad some people get the reference since that cgp gray video is ancient
@@viks3864 I have watched most of his videos even ones from 10y ago
@@viks3864 I GET IT
@@viks3864 it’s just 3 years old, not even pre-pandemic.
Erm triangles are best actually
Yes! Please dig more into Barrow’s impossibility theorem in a future video!
YOU JUST DEREKED DEREK!
I didnt understand a thing he said but i do really want pizza now
average bio student 🤷🤷🤷
IRV is better than First Past the Post, but it still has some major flaws. In fact, it actually still has all the flaws on the chart at 15:20, just to a lesser extent than FPP. It also has the problem that you can actually harm a candidate by voting for them, which even FPP doesn't have, though the problems with FPP are worse overall.
I co-founded a non-profit in the US that educates people on various voting reforms, and I endorse this message.
IRV is definitely better than FPP, but I tend to describe it as “the worst of all the better options”. A lot of the advocates/organizations that promote IRV/RCV oversell the benefits and ignore the flaws.
Very fascinating video! Keep it up
Grouping voters together is just stupid
@butlazgazempropan-butan11k87 tbf I also think the system is so dumb but the thing is that the UK and US both suffer from this effect. There are reasons why it is used but there are a lot more reason to not use it and switch to a newer system.
Instant Runoff also has the advantage that it can be modified, without a whole lot of fuss, to a system where one district has more than one representative. This solves another major problem - in any district with just one representative, as much as just less than half the population in the district has its voice erased in the next level of the hierarchy with the system. With, say, four representatives, minorities as small as just over 20% will be represented.
This appears to not accoint for the primary process in U.S. political system (which removes the second choices people would want/have). Like all your variations of Pizzas would be removed in the primary process and only one pizza would go to the general election.
This is why collective leadership is needed.
The solution to Gerrymandering is... not allow Mr. Gerry to actually form the districts, now advise the Republicans on how to draw districts which favour their party. But, that option has long since passed. RIH Gerry, RIH.
The true solution is to prevent the _politicians_ from deciding how the districts are drawn _and_ there are multiple political parties (at least 3) for the voters to choose from. This creates a situation where each district is different. Some will have a majority voting for X/Y/Z, others have the majority split between X and Y, and a minority in which the votes are equally split between X, Y, and Z. Sure, it sucks if you live in a district in which your voting pattern is the minority, but that feeling is going to be shared across the nation/territory/province/state/etc, and will even out, more or less.
Gerrymandering is done by elected officials unless they or the people legislate the power. If you don't trust the elected officials to gerrymander then why do you trust them to legislate?
@@kerwinbrown4180,
Why are you asking me? I don't live in USA.
@@aralornwolf3140 You opened the conversation. What schemes are in place in your country?
You might have heard about this by now but Veritasium has put out a video strikingly similar to this, including the example of taking your friends to dinner and voting on sushi, pizza, or burgers. Not sure if this is just a stereotypical example but after the discussion of Condorcet and properties of a rational voting system I got quite a bit of deja vu. Good video here by the way!
Cgpgrey voting in the animal kingdom
This is great, thank you.
was watching veritasium and thought "havent i watched this before?". videos are way too similar lol
@wetoyono lol yeah insane coincidence cuz I remember his video about the number 37 was eerily close to my last video xD
@@viks3864I wonder if veritasium secretly watches your channel.
That third person looks like Jaiden
@@maarumation4794 that wasn't actually intentional but I do kinda see it lol
to add to that i can't unsee theodd1sout in the fourth friend
Finally someone pointed it out
Score vote 0 to 5
Vs
Score vote -3 to +3
Note these are actually different things. People who have no preference will always vote 0 most of the time bit if we shift the score to the left we allow peole to vote afainst something with -3 while previously it w8uld have been just 0. I would love to see video about this.
loved this video, pointed out some really important things
"This [the spoiler effect] is probably single-handedly the biggest issue with elections in the US and the UK"
No way. For the UK sure fair enough. Their last election just had like 14% of the vote convert to 1% of seats (and that 14% was likely massively lower than it would be due to strategic voting). It's also the case for Canada where the NDP (generally more left) cannibalizes some of the Liberal vote (center left). But the US? I don't think practically any significant vote bleeding happens from independents. US got a bunch of other problems like electoral college and winner takes all making it come down to just a few swing states each election (like what a seriously weird system). The winner takes all seats (at state level) makes it so its incredibly unlikely any third party could ever rise as well in the US, but that's not the same as third parties currently cannibalizing votes.
First past the post systems are stupid in general for multi party systems. UK and Canada are both examples of how massively these systems fail to reflect the preferences of voters. UK really recently and Canada especially in the past 80s and 90s. Systems which count additional preferences of voters allow new parties to have a better chance at gaining momentum, allow one issue voters to have some influence and in general require politicians to actually cater to the issues voters care about lest they lose votes to parties that will. It's a downright shame to see FPTP in some of the countries which would benefit the most from a different system.
Off topic, but how did you get a Brilliant sponsor with 7k subs? And you have a surprisingly fleshed out team you're crediting for such a small youtube channel. As someone who's been curious about content creation I'm curious how your journey went for that.
@das6109 That is a completely fair point to be honest. I live in the UK so I don't really know US politics as well although I do know some of the basics. The reason I say the spoiler effect was so major is because it prevents a third party from ever even emerging. Any time we have fptp, voting systems tend to what you guys have where it is literally just two parties and I would have to think that is because of the spoiler effect. Once the spoiler effect has done that to a country, then I see how there are some other larger issues which take place but that wad my reasoning I guess but that is a really interesting point so thanks for sharing. Also I tend to only make videos when I have some spare time since it is incredibly time-consuming although I don't have a team and all the animations and drawing are me although me and a couple of friends will skim through for flaws at the very end just incase. I am looking to possibly get some other people to help me since its probably like 100 hours a video right now but we will see lol. Hope you have a nice day :D
@@viks3864 That's also a fair argument that the spoiler effect is the reason for the two party system, but it misses a bit of why the US in particular is so deeply entrenched in a two party system compared to other countries with FPTP systems like the UK or Canada. The US winner takes all system means to get any representation you have to get the majority of votes in your state. Once a party in a state gets a majority of the vote they on a federal level get the political power equivalent to winning every riding in that state.
This is why the US has so called 'swing states'. These are the only states where there's a chance of both parties winning and as a result these are the only states where voters actually need to be appealed to or on some level matter in the election result. US has individual states with populations in the ballpark of Spain that you don't even need to really campaign in because the majority will vote red (Cali) or blue (Texas) and that majority will decide 100% of the ridings in that 30mil pop.
FPTP is punishing because you don't just need to convert a high number of voters, you need to convert a high percentage of the vote in particular ridings. The US extends this concept, but to the level where many of the individual ridings are essentially as large as countries in Europe. Which is imo why they never moved past two party systems where most FPTP systems have even if they started as two party systems and took a long time for any others to emerge as viable. Another angle of the issue is just how stupidly expensive campaign efforts in the US are and how there's no cap on spending (2024 is expected to cost ~$10 billion). It's unsurprising that the independent candidate who got closest to winning an American election in the last hundred years (Ross Perot 1992) was a billionaire who financed the majority of his campaign. It's also unsurprising that despite having 20% of the vote compared to the winning party's 42% he received exactly 0 seats. Yep the US is pretty silly.
The time you spent on the animations and example definitely show. It looks very polished! I only disagreed with that one line and thought I'd point out some stuff about it, but as you correctly defended it's not really even an incorrect line, and expanding beyond it wouldn't really be in scope for the video. Sorry for the rambling it's just a topic of interest (admittedly I'm not even murican).
Still wondering about the Brilliant sponsorship though. Is it something you can pitch from them?
It's a very narrow look on voting systems tbh.
You can solve most of the problems via a vote in which every party gets seats in parliaments based on the popular vote. And if you're asking for a head of state than the people in the parliment can choose one of their peers via an coalition.
If you still want local representation you can even do that by including a second vote for an local representative who gets one of the seats of their party via the first vote.
Electing representatives in proportion to their first choice approval is not possible by assumption because we want a single winner; it'd be like sending some people get pizza and others get taco. It's a good option, but it's not always possible (because having a supreme authority or unity of will is often beneficial in general).
Also, it still falls prey to the spoiler effect.
As for using the representatives to elect the head of state, what you say is just a non-answer; what voting system do they use?
Likewise, how do the local representatives elect the party representatives (nevermind that increasing the layers displays several problematic properties)?
@@momom6197you know what, that’s a good point. Why should we be so concerned about a single party government? Coalition governments are a pain but they are more democratic than two dominant parties fighting over the entire electorate.
@@momom6197 How is there still a spoiler effect?
The voting system that the representatives use is just majority decision. If no candidate gets a majority
in the first round of voting, nothing happens. They can have a moment where politics happens and then they try again.
Party representatives can be selected the same way they are now: have a primary where party members vote, whoever gets the most votes gets the first spot on the list and so on. You can leave this whole thing up to the parties.
Very well explained, this is brilliant 👏
Congrats dude, I think you might be the first youtuber with under 10k to get a sponsor 🗣️💯🔥
Why do you seem to state gerrymandering is only when there is a manipulation by the majority? Why wouldn't it be both? There are plenty of cases where the minority does it to increase their representation.
@viccitude That might have been lost in the way I explained it but you are right, Gerrymandering is from both sides and I might have made that more confusing than it needs to be.
Is that Jaiden and James?
No. It wasn't intentional apparently
@@MrMayhem010 made me click instantly regardless
My solution: stay in one place and everyone orders whatever they want with delivery.
Isn't the whole point that the combination of FPTP and strategic voting inevitably leads to a two-party system, which necessarily means there can't be a spoiler effect like in a multi-party system?
11:59 Treat top row as 3 points middle 2 bottom 1 and all 3 shapes get the same score.
So could just straightnup call this one a tie...
15:34 Two options two voters who each choose different, you can't "system" your way out of that one. Condorcet is a complicated form of tie.
Why is still everyone talking about single winner elections, when those are clearly not useful in most situations
Because the presidential election is a single winner election, and also typically has the most contentious results.
@@SikerGaming just take the 2 canditates with the most votes and do a runoff, the president can only nominate the prime minister, if the proportionally elected parliament doesn't approve it can't do anything, in the end the prime minister and the government matter, so it isn't a big problem
@ATOM-vv3xu its mainly because they tend to be easier to run. For example in this example it would be unrealistic to go and buy every possible food but in a lot of things single winner is easy. Also considering how bad single winner is for politics and democracy, its crazy that its still used in three of the world's biggest countries being Canada, the US and UK. I do agree single winner is bad but there are uses to it though
@@SikerGaming yes and presidential elections are also not useful because presidential democracies are clearly worse than parliamentary democracies and both don't work well together.
they are the most important. representative elections don't have the problem of rigging
The video already anticipating that I watched another voting video beforehand (I did) 😮
@@moo3oo3oo3 I wonder who it was...
Just use the Minimax Condorcet method. It solves the Condorcet criteria by always electing the Condorcet winner if there is no cycle. It has all the best features of a voting system. And sure it doesn't have independence of alternatives, but who cares about that one?
Im not very sure that veritasium intended to put out a video on the same topic, using the same examples, within the same week as this one you created, but it really bums me out because this video was a fantastic explanation of why ranked choice voting systems aren't quite fair (although more fair than our current , single choice one). Either way, a bigger channel covering the same topic will often overshadow the smaller channel, just due to the social media algorithm and people already beiing subscribers of the other channel.
@tylerduncan5908 yeah it really is quite unfortunate :(. The videos really are quite similar in premise and execution and even title. The views genuinely have dropped drastically and way faster than usual for this video and I think his video may have been a factor. I'm glad you liked it and I appreciate the feedback
mmmmg gerrymandering
Did Veritasium just steal your whole concept?
@uwezimmermann5427 lmao its the 37 video all over again. What are the odds?
You lost me at imagining myself hating tacos
There were so many hardliners in Iran's election that the spoiler effect meant the government's favorite didn't win
In most countries they just use second election turn, where two candidates with most votes, run against eachother.
And there is also proportional representation for parliment - where every party gets amount of representatives equal to the total vote percentage (more or less).
Different voting systems often seem less exploitable because people have had a lot less time and spend a lot less effort trying to figure out how to exploit them
0:09 Jaiden?
My next summer plans!!
Wrong, Hexagon is the bestagon
@@darkshurikens3316 I agree, triangles are cringe
You’ve been Derek’ed 😂
@tobyouten5137 it's the 37 video all over again 😢😢
Counting instant runoff is a nightmare though. Source: I'm a vote tallyer
As a French I felt insanely represented by this video
Let's imagine that you had friends. 😢
@@Kelgoran Top 10 questions maths still can't solve
I’m a fan of rather than asking what option people prefer to instead ask what they wouldn’t mind, and then pick the option the most people are ok with.
politics and math are so fun
@@lemon4378 I completely agree
I am not living in France or have any connection to it but many of these tactics I kind of see there. And I do not talk about one vote but the last 2 or 3 legislations.
Having 3 right wing options so that they split their votes and miss the majority? Check.
Having the majority of votes overall but the representatives are not from this party due to regional voting patterns? Check. (Gerrymandering)
Using tactical voting to supress the right party from winning? Check.
Why did you fix it? I thought we were rigging it
Seems we both watched the same video about voting
A party in my country is literally running with the name "None of those" (translation) and it was ruled to be legal.
Germany has an alt-right party running called "Alternative for Germany"...
It's currently winning....
Branding can do a lot
Great video
rank each option individually with repeats allowed?
This is how RFK can still win
UA-cam putting a disclaimer here is ridiculously obnoxious
you pretend like there is only first past the post and instant runoff. but there are systems that are strictly better than both of them: score voting and approval voting.
lmao no way veritasium just released the same video
2:17
It would be easier to see if the shapes where filled with their colour.
@markusfassbinder8275 that's completely fair - I did experiment with it but I wasn't a huge fan tbh but ill take that advice on board
@@viks3864 i'm not a graphics designer, but I advice experimenting with the outer border, if you fill the sape in in.
Maybe leave a small gap between the filled in part and the outline.
So you arguing for Rank Choice voting?
@@Joshua-ew6ks not necessarily for ranked choice but more against fptp
dictatorship is perfect voting system. no voting, no problem comrade!
Nice video, I admire the manim skills
Arrow's theorem has joined the chat.
@davethesid8960 lol yeah arrows is a really interesting idea but something I knew I wouldn't have time to get into. Its a good read for anyone who wants more info
@@viks3864 Totally agree, we covered it in undergrad logic class.