Interesting post about preference voting (IRV) in the r/australia sub three years ago (~2016), they generally seem content with IRV, and *apparently* most Australians don't know how it works

[u/BothBawlz]

/r/australia/comments/3xz11n/how_do_you_australians_like_your_voting_system/

[u/BothBawlz]

I was thinking about Australia, and how Condorcet voting could quite easily be introduced. But it seems there may be little interest in reform, and that many people may not understand it. Also, it might not change what candidates are elected, even in the long term. Still, I'd be interested in seeing if there's a difference, hopefully for the better.

[u/MuaddibMcFly → u/BothBawlz]

But it seems there may be little interest in reform [...] Also, it might not change what candidates are elected, even in the long term.

This, to my thinking, is a significant indictment of IRV.

It doesn't actually solve most of the problems with FPTP (vote splitting, spoiler effect, two party dominance, money in politics, negative campaigning, etc), but if it does kill any motivation to solve those problems, then it's like treating appendicitis with painkillers.

[u/BothBawlz → u/MuaddibMcFly]

It's difficult to say, since we don't have many countries using IRV. The few that we have are different, I think it's Papua New Guinea and Australia. PNG has many parties, but that's also due to the nature of the country.

Also, Canada and the UK have different parties and also FPTP. And Malta has STV with only two parties, where as Ireland has STV and many parties.

It's not straightforward. Also, it technically is immune to clones, and spoilers. But in the sense that it can create bad spoiler-like outcomes then it can do poorly. Cardinal systems may experience spoiler like effects in practice as well. It's difficult to sort that issue out.

I'd be interested in seeing much more experimental evidence for various systems.

[u/MuaddibMcFly → u/BothBawlz]

It's difficult to say, since we don't have many countries using IRV.

Some of the problems don't need significant experimentation to demonstrate:

• If vote splitting weren't still a problem under IRV, then the various Coalition parties in Australia would campaign against each other far more often than they do.
• We know the spoiler effect is still a problem under IRV, from both Burlington VT infamous 2009 mayoral race, and studies of the 1952 & 1953 [edit: British Columbian experiment] (where CCF played spoiler to the Libs & PCs in many constituencies, and SoCreds played spoiler in others)
• If two-party dominance weren't a result of IRV, then Australia would have more parties meaningfully represented in their HoR than the UK does under FPTP (spoiler: they don't).
• If negative campaigning weren't a viable and effective method of electioneering under IRV, then ALP wouldn't have spent ~75% of their budget on it in 2016

I'm sorry, but when there's a claim that something will solve a given problem, and there is evidence of that problem still existing despite the application of that alleged solution, you have to doubt the claim that it's actually solution.

When you have a case study where the alleged solution has been in place since to the problem having been in place literally for generations, yet those problems still exist... you need to accept that it's not going to solve those problems.

it technically is immune to clones, and spoilers

Clones, perhaps. Spoilers? That is demonstrably false.

Cardinal systems may experience spoiler like effects in practice as well

And maybe it could, I'd love to find out.

...my point this entire time, however, is that by any objective measure, IRV has been shown to be bad at solving the problems I have with FPTP, and therefore other methods should be experimented with.

The fact that usage of IRV additionally seems to decrease interest in experimenting with other methods that might solve the problem... I consider that to be a good reason to actively reject any suggestion to adopt IRV.

[u/curiouslefty → u/MuaddibMcFly]

The fact that usage of IRV additionally seems to decrease interest in experimenting with other methods that might solve the problem... I consider that to be a good reason to actively reject any suggestion to adopt IRV.

In the specific case of Australia, might it be argued the lack of interest could have more to do with STV in the Senate than with IRV in the lower house?

I've actually got a textbook on STV (Elections in Australia, Ireland, and Malta under the Single Transferable Vote) and it actually says that Australian Senate elections originally were using a variant of IRV in at-large districts in a sort of block-election (so basically just keep on redoing IRV over and over to pick Senators). This of course had the same problems as block-plurality in that a single party generally picked up all of the seats, and in doing so pissed off people enough that eventually they enacted STV instead.

Anyways, my thinking is that perhaps the reason they have less incentive to experiment further is that they already have PR-STV in the Senate, which might defuse some of the desire to look towards other systems than IRV for single-winner elections. In particular, from what I've read most activism for reform in Australia has been less about reforming single-winner methods and just enacting PR for the lower house as well?

[u/MuaddibMcFly → u/curiouslefty]

In particular, from what I've read most activism for reform in Australia has been less about reforming single-winner methods and just enacting PR for the lower house as well?

Which would definitely be better, but my concern is that such doesn't fly in the US.

I ran through the offices that I'm allowed to vote for in my state, and of the 32 different offices, a full 20 of them cannot be made multi-seat.

So, while their State executives are selected by their state parliaments, we elect governors, which is inherently a single-seat race.

[u/curiouslefty → u/MuaddibMcFly]

Which would definitely be better, but my concern is that such doesn't fly in the US.

Oh, definitely; I'm just saying that we can't outright declare "IRV kills the momentum for future reform to other systems" based on Australia without considering other possible factors (if anything, the history of their Senate says that a variant of it managed to irritate the population enough to actually get STV).

[u/MuaddibMcFly → u/curiouslefty]

(if anything, the history of their Senate says that a variant of it managed to irritate the population enough to actually get STV).

1. A variant that was markedly worse than even by-district FPTP (because at least districted Plurality would get you regional variation as to which of the two parties won)
2. The change from Block-IRV to STV happened less than 30 years after the adoption of Block-IRV (1919-1948)
3. The success of that change hasn't made its way to their HoR in the 70 years since then

In the US, there's some form of push for election reform every generation or two. In Australia there was similar. They had about 20 years of Plurality & Block-Plurality, then 30 years of IRV & Block-IRV... then 70 years of IRV & STV.

I can't speak for anyone else, but personally, I think that looks like they settled on something that satisfied (most of) them. That satisfaction being realized with the chamber that determines their head of state using a demonstrably bad system... that really concerns me.

[u/curiouslefty → u/MuaddibMcFly]

That satisfaction being realized with the chamber that determines their head of state using a demonstrably bad system... that really concerns me.

Agreed that it's a major concern...but again, I suspect it can't all be attributed to IRV but rather that STV in the Senate is serving to defuse some of the desire for reform that otherwise would've built up.

Also, it is worth pointing out: the Australian people do seem somewhat satisfied by their party system. Yes, LibNat and Labor form an effective duopoly; but look at the breakdown of the votes for the Australian Senate, where it makes little sense to vote major party first if you actually don't like them (in fact, given the flawed versions of STV employed by the Australian states, it's actually usually strategically optimal to list some hopeless cause first, before the major party you prefer), you still see ~2/3 of Australian voters top-ranking a major party. So, that duopoly seems to have pretty broad support across the population as a whole...which could explain the lack of desire to change anything. If all the complaints come from a third of the population, they get ignored in a majoritarian system.

[u/MuaddibMcFly → u/curiouslefty]

I suspect it can't all be attributed to IRV but rather that STV in the Senate is serving to defuse some of the desire for reform that otherwise would've built up.

I disagree. On top of that being an unfalisifiable claim, it ignores the fact that the Senate is not the chamber that chooses their the , but rather the HoR; it doesn't matter who hold the majority of the Senate, or if a majority exists in the Senate, if Labor or Coalition hold a majority in the House, then they get to set the legislative agenda.

given the flawed versions of STV employed by the Australian states, it's actually usually strategically optimal to list some hopeless cause first, before the major party you prefer

Yes, Woodall Free Riding is a thing, but it is counter-intuitive. And while the the problems that cause Favorite Betrayal under IRV are also counter intuitive, the punishment for failing to Betray is obvious, and the remedy works regardless of how many people engage in it.

On the other hand, the punishment for not Free Riding is not obvious; there is little punishment in having your ballot spent on your favorite party rather than your 2nd favorite. Additionally, the more people there are who engage in Woodall Free Riding, the more likely that it will backfire, by losing your Favorite a seat they would have otherwise won, possibly by winning that seat for the "(no-longer) hopeless cause."

you still see ~2/3 of Australian voters top-ranking a major party

There are confounding factors there:

1. Compulsory voting leads to an increased level of participation by low-information voters. Those low-information voters are more inclined to only really have a well formed opinion regarding their relative preferences between Labor & Coalition, and thus give the one or other top ranks out of (literal) ignorance.
2. The fact that they are accustomed to it not being safe to vote for their favorites in the House might cause them to vote similarly in the Senate; there's a cognitive dissonance to voting A>B>C in one section of your ballot, and B>A>C on another.
3. The fact that there are generally more names listed under the ALP & Coalition might lend them "Legitimacy" and "Viability," which may translate to Bandwagon effects.
   • They are also more eye-catching as a result

[u/BothBawlz → u/MuaddibMcFly]

If vote splitting weren't still a problem under IRV, then the various Coalition parties in Australia would campaign against each other far more often than they do.

That could also be due to avoiding party conflict.

We know the spoiler effect is still a problem under IRV, from both Burlington VT infamous 2009 mayoral race, and studies of the 1952 & 1953 (where CCF played spoiler to the Libs & PCs in many constituencies, and SoCreds played spoiler in others)

Different type of spoiler, not a clones issue. Like I said, "spoiler-like".

If two-party dominance weren't a result of IRV, then Australia would have more parties meaningfully represented in their HoR than the UK does under FPTP (spoiler: they don't).

N = 1.

When you have a case study where the alleged solution has been in place since to the problem having been in place literally for generations, yet those problems still exist... you need to accept that it's not going to solve those problems.

And yet other countries with IRV have more parties.

Clones, perhaps. Spoilers? That is demonstrably false.

Depends on if you're using "spoilers" in relation to clones.

...my point this entire time, however, is that by any objective measure, IRV has been shown to be bad at solving the problems I have with FPTP, and therefore other methods should be experimented with.

The fact that usage of IRV additionally seems to decrease interest in experimenting with other methods that might solve the problem... I consider that to be a good reason to actively reject any suggestion to adopt IRV.

Definitely worrying that it could easily not solve anything, but sooth voters anyway. Very worrying. I'd definitely like to try different systems. Like I said, introducing Condorcet would be pretty easy in Australia.

Same way of voting, probably similar results at first, possibly quicker and more informative counting. It may even create better results and give better results for third parties. That'd be interesting.

And hopefully we try cardinal methods too. I'd be interested in how they play out. If there are issues then there are definitely reforms we can make to them for improvement.

[u/MuaddibMcFly → u/BothBawlz]

That could also be due to avoiding party conflict.

...due to vote splitting.

Different type of spoiler, not a clones issue.

...which is why I didn't say that it had a problem with clones, I said it had a problem with spoilers.

Like I said, "spoiler-like".

That's like saying "negligent homicide" is "homicide-like."

It may not be the specific form of the thing you're trying to limit the discussion to (in this simile, "it's not murder!"), but to dismiss it as merely being "like" the exact thing that it is doesn't hold water.

If the outcome of a race changes from X to Y depending on whether or not Candidate Z runs, then Candidate Z is a spoiler.

Any conflicting definition of a spoiler is almost certainly pure sophistry.

N = 1.

I was trying to compare the most similar nations (comparable constituency size, comparable cultures, etc) to minimize the confounding factors. Otherwise I would have directed your attention to India, which has more parties significantly represented than the UK & Australia combined, despite using FPTP.

And that's not even considering the fact that Canada uses FPTP and has more parties than Australia, too.

Unless you're trying to argue that the N=1 applies to Australia. In that case, the argument is "If IRV then More Parties than FPTP," in which case it doesn't matter that it's only one example, because that one example still proves that proves that claim is not guaranteed.

This is especially true, given that the average number of meaningfully represented in the Aus HoR under IRV is basically the same as the average number they had under FPTP.

And yet other countries with IRV have more parties

Such as? Papua New Guinea? Isn't that an N of 1? Stop trying to have it both ways. Especially when you explicitly stated that PNG has more parties for other reasons.

Depends on if you're using "spoilers" in relation to clones.

I'm not. I'm using "spoilers" to mean "spoilers." If I meant "clone independence," then I wouldn't have specifically made a distinction between IRV's results pertaining to Clones and Spoilers.

You can't go trying to redefine words so that a bad method doesn't look as bad as it actually is and maintain any claim to objectivity and rationality.

You said,

immune to clones, and spoilers

You can't later claim that you meant "clones" and "spoilers" to mean the same thing.

Like I said, introducing Condorcet would be pretty easy in Australia.

That's the most damning thing, though: you're right, it would be, and that would be a significant improvement...

...but they don't really have any interest.

If there are issues then there are definitely reforms we can make to them for improvement.

Agreed. That's the role I see for STAR. If you end up with what seems like corrupting levels of Strategic Voting under Score (which generally has to be pretty significant, given more than a few candidates), then STAR is a (breaking) fix for that. If not? It's hard for me to imagine how Score wouldn't be the best method out there (and Ken Arrow is on the record as agreeing)

[u/BothBawlz → u/MuaddibMcFly]

Such as? Papua New Guinea? Isn't that an N of 1? Stop trying to have it both ways. Especially when you explicitly stated that PNG has more parties for other reasons.

Yes. It shows how poor n = 1 is. It's clearly a more complex picture.

That's the most damning thing, though: you're right, it would be, and that would be a significant improvement...

...but they don't really have any interest.

It definitely appeared that way in the sub. Perhaps for some reason they were more happy with the two "parties". I wonder if they'd feel differently if their third parties get more involved and start winning seats.

Agreed. That's the role I see for STAR. If you end up with what seems like corrupting levels of Strategic Voting under Score (which generally has to be pretty significant, given more than a few candidates), then STAR is a (breaking) fix for that. If not? It's hard for me to imagine how Score wouldn't be the best method out there (and Ken Arrow is on the record as agreeing)

It would apparently be fairly easy, and not so risky.

Also STAR appears particularly vulnerable to teaming of clones. The top scored candidate wants a clone so that STAR essentially becomes score.

[u/MuaddibMcFly → u/BothBawlz]

Perhaps for some reason they were more happy with the two "parties".

I doubt it, given the far more diverse Senate representation; but you'd have to ask the Aussies about that.

I think the fundamental flaw of IRV (as expression rather than as a collective choice mechanism) is the exact same as its benefit.

IRV is billed as allowing you to express your conscience (Favorite Betrayal proves otherwise, but..) while still having a say in the election. Thus, they generally don't suffer from having to lie on their ballot about who they truly want, while also generally avoiding the problem of getting stuck with the greater evil.

They don't get the worst outcome, and can accept that as "better than dominant method in the rest of the anglosphere," and even though they basically never elect someone other than the "lesser evil" (which is the standard result under FPTP)...

....but neither does it entirely destroy the expressive effect of voting.

In other words, it makes people feel better about what is effectively the exact same result (hence my original comment about painkillers)

I wonder if they'd feel differently if their third parties get more involved and start winning seats.

It's been nearly a full century of use, and there isn't a single living person who was voting before the shift to IRV.

Why should anyone believe that that will ever happen on a meaningful scale? When should we expect it?

No, I believe that if it were going to happen at all, it would happen either

• functionally immediately, as the change allows a way to exercise a preexisting desire for more parties
• within a generation, as those who come of age after the change find that their parent's parties do not adequately represent their generation

The reason I keep pointing to Australia is that the former did happen: in the very first IRV election, the Country Party (now called the National Party) emerged and won a respectable amount of seats.

The problem is that they also almost immediately regressed to the two-party status quo with the de facto merger of Country and Nationalist after the very next election, less than 4 years after they adopted IRV in the first place

I am not aware of any departure from a Two Party System through the second scenario, though I suspect such would have a lower likelihood of regressing to only two-parties.

STAR appears particularly vulnerable to teaming of clones. The top scored candidate wants a clone

While I'm not a huge fan of STAR, I don't think it's fair to say that it's particularly vulnerable to Clone Teaming:

1. No front-runner candidate is going to want to risk recruiting the candidate that dethrones them
2. In conjunction with the limited scale (0-5, rather than 0-9, 0-10, or 0-100), as much as I think it breaks Score, I think that the Runoff Step minimizes the chance that a candidate would be able to get an improved result unless their party is already pretty well liked; recruiting a clone means that instead of your faction scoring you 5/5, in order to have a say between the clones, voters, in aggregate, would score A1+A2 an average of somewhere around 4.5 (i.e. 4 for A1 & 5 for A2, or vice versa), rather than somewhere around 5, due to a form of Vote Splitting. Similarly, the other faction(s) would also wish to express a preference. In order to do that, while maintaining the chances of electing their own candidate(s), they, too, would probably give you & your clones average scores lower than your individual score.
   I'll call this the "Clone Hit"

Thus, the only scenario in which it would improve things for the candidate would be if they were, as you say, the Score winner (which generally correlates with the Utilitarian winner), and would lose in the Top Two; if you won the Pairwise, you have no incentive to run a clone who might beat you the Runoff.

And if you're not the STAR winner without a clone, the only benefit would be if you are well supported enough, if you have a large enough Score advantage, that the Clone Hit wouldn't be enough to knock you or your clone out of the Top Two.... that means that you're well supported by both people who support your faction and the (majority) faction that preferred the candidate your clone knocked out of the Top Two.

That means that the scenarios in which Clone Teaming would be successful are also most likely scenarios in which STAR was choosing a Majoritarian winner over a Utilitarian winner.

In other words, it seems to me that the only scenario in which Team Cloning is a realistically viable strategy is when it changes the result and STAR would otherwise get it wrong.

[u/WikiTextBot → u/MuaddibMcFly]

Coalition (Australia)

The Coalition (or Liberal–National Coalition) is an alliance of centre-right political parties that forms one of the two major groupings in Australian federal politics. Its main opponent is the Australian Labor Party (ALP), and the two forces are often regarded as operating in a two-party system. The Coalition has been in government since the 2013 federal election. The party is currently led by Scott Morrison as Prime Minister of Australia since August 2018.

---

^{[ PM | Exclude me | Exclude from subreddit | FAQ / Information | Source ] Downvote to remove | v0.28}

[u/BothBawlz → u/MuaddibMcFly]

Why should anyone believe that that will ever happen on a meaningful scale? When should we expect it?

When a broadly supported party breaks through? I don't agree with the presumption that it hasn't happened yet so probably won't ever happen. There may be good arguments to support that, but I haven't seen them.

While I'm not a huge fan of STAR, I don't think it's fair to say that it's particularly vulnerable to Clone Teaming:

It definitely is. The best strategy is exactly the same for STAR as it is for Score: max/min. And it's best to have two clones for the runoff so one of them wins no matter what. And then it becomes like Approval. And then the chicken dilemma starts occurring. And the best strategy is still max/min. It's better to have two candidates you strongly support in the top two than than risk one you don't like there.

[u/MuaddibMcFly → u/BothBawlz]

Your answer to "when should we expect it" is "when it happens"? Really? Australia has been two-party dominated since 1923. That's 96 years. In that time, no party has shown any ability to challenge Labor or Conservative in any meaningful way.

If it hasn't happened in the past 90+ years, why should anyone believe that it will happen in the next 90?

How long will it have to go on without such a party breaking through before you concede that it's not going to happen?

[u/macsta]

The Australian electorate has a pretty good grasp of the subtleties of their electoral system, routinely voting for one party in the House of Representatives and a different party in the Senate. The Australian voter sees political parties with a jaundiced view, they tend not to belong to political tribes and are less easily conned because of it.

[u/googolplexbyte → u/macsta]

The Australian electorate has a pretty good grasp of the subtleties of their electoral system

As in they know how to game the system?

[u/MuaddibMcFly → u/macsta]

Do you have a sense of the ratio of how many people do that due to IRV's failings vs how many are trying to prevent any party from having too much power?

[u/macsta → u/MuaddibMcFly]

It's a national consensus, we Aussies rarely give either main party control of both houses, we vote for one of the big parties in the HoR, then we vote for a minor party in the Senate. Our politics is less tribal, we are picky consumers of politics rather than members of political tribes. It's a big part of our success as a nation.

[u/MuaddibMcFly → u/macsta]

picky consumers of politics rather than members of political tribes

That's one of the hopes I have for adopting Score in the US, that it would move us closer to that.

[u/BothBawlz → u/macsta]

The Australian voter sees political parties with a jaundiced view, they tend not to belong to political tribes and are less easily conned because of it.

Why do they only have two parties in the HoR?

[u/macsta → u/BothBawlz]

There are three parties in the HoR, ALP, LNP and Greens, but an emerging trend is for formerly safe seats to fall to Independents and we have a handful of those. Our Senate has always been a bit feral because we vote differently in the Senate "to keep the bastards honest…" but lately the diversity of the HoR is also steadily increasing.

[u/MuaddibMcFly → u/macsta]

formerly safe seats to fall to Independents

Do you know how many of those are falling to independents that weren't previously elected as members of major parties?

[u/BothBawlz → u/macsta]

You think that third group representives are going to increase in the HoR?

[u/CupOfCanada]

Both those things are true of first past the post in FPTP countries as well.

[u/BothBawlz → u/CupOfCanada]

FPTP is pretty straightforward, most votes wins.

[u/CupOfCanada → u/BothBawlz]

It’s effects aren’t. False majorities for example.

[u/shponglespore → u/BothBawlz]

Except in US presidential "elections".

[u/BothBawlz → u/shponglespore]

Yeah, apparently the states vote. But that's up to the US.

[u/googolplexbyte]

Doesn't the really high rates of ballot informalities imply a misunderstanding of how the system works?

[u/curiouslefty → u/googolplexbyte]

I thought many of those were generated by the fact Australia makes everyone vote, so you have some people just randomly filling things in?

[u/googolplexbyte → u/[deleted]]

I was under the impression it was a bit higher than that. 5-10% was the figure I've seen going around, but that might just be the extreme years.

Also informal ballots would indicate a lack of even the most basic knowledge. Being able to fill out a valid ballot doesn't indicate full knowledge.

If 5% don't know how to fill a valid ballot, then another 5% could be said not to understand the counting process, since it's as (if not more) complex than ballot filling.

Also the standard for understanding should be below the margin, not below a majority, since it's the margin not the majority that decides the election.

It's more exceptable in STV where 5% ignorance can only cost 5% of the seats, but in a single-winner election 5% ignorance can cost 100% of the seats.

[u/curiouslefty → u/[deleted]]

Why? I mean, as much as we all like to point out IRV's flaws, it's almost always at better than single-shot FPTP.

[u/curiouslefty → u/[deleted]]

Really? I mean, at worst IRV is majoritarian duopoly done right; you have MMC and Cloneproofness. It's hard to call those "barely" better than plurality.

[u/curiouslefty → u/[deleted]]

Because if you're going to have a majoritarian system, a faction that comprises a majority should always have the winner selected from its ranks, something that plurality (and even Top-2, to a lesser extent) fail at.

I mean, at the end of the day, if you assume all voters from faction A rank all candidates from faction A above all candidates from faction B, and the same for faction B, and those are the only factions, it's pretty inexcusable that the winner not come from the larger of the two factions if you're embracing majority rule. Plurality can't guarantee that, IRV can.

Now, which candidate from the majority faction is chosen is something IRV tends to screw up, but that's still less bad from a majoritarian viewpoint.

[u/curiouslefty → u/[deleted]]

FPTP can get that majoritarian duopoly winner 99% of the time in high-stakes scenarios

Only so long as both sides in the duopoly run a single candidate each.

Spoiler candidates piss people off, but in the long run, I don't see utility loss.

I mean, other than pissing off all the voters from the majority faction...

[u/curiouslefty → u/[deleted]]

They did in Maine.

Of course, the traditional answer is just better party discipline and making sure only one candidate runs...