• someguy3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    That’s not strange, that’s how it works. Especially if there’s a strong ‘anyone but Palin’ contingent.

    Star and approval look fucking terrible and is way out of line of the ‘one person one vote’ system we have and I think we want.

    *For anyone wondering about Alaska, there were two Republicans, including Palin, and one Democrat running for house seat. The other Republican was eliminated in ranked choice. Essentially his votes split to both the Dem and Palin, instead of all going to Palin like the Palin people wanted, and the Democrat won. So the GOP there is now mad.

    • qqq@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      The GOP was maybe mad, but more importantly to me the people who actually study voting systems for a living were “mad”, and the people who hurt their favored candidate by voting for them were likely upset.

      Ignoring that the outcome was maybe what I would have wanted, it is definitely pathological that you can hurt a candidate by voting for them. Quoting the Wikipedia:

      The election was also a negative voting weight event, where a voter’s ballot has the opposite of its intended effect (e.g. a candidate being disqualified for having “too many votes”). In this race, Begich lost as a result of 5,200 ballots ranking him ahead of Peltola; Peltola also would have lost if she had received more support from Palin voters.

      What do you find wrong with those other systems? RCV is also not “one person one vote”. Approval voting is used in the UN and neither seem to have some of the pathologies of RCV.

      Bit of a late edit here, but isn’t “one person one vote” basically the description of our current problem with voting? All of these systems are trying to solve that issue.