Again, we should not be pushing any form of RCV, not even as a bait and switch. It’s a bad system that is bad.
It’s not a category, it’s a bad voting system. Words have meanings, and sloppy use of those words helps no one.
Hell, STAR isn’t an Ordinal system (where a list is ranked in order), it’s a cardinal system (where preference is indicated independent of other options). So saying it’s a “Ranked Choice” system is just wrong on every front.
As was said in the video, there’s a problem when you rank choices against each other, where is the cutoff between like and hate? Some election formats force you to rank everyone on the ballot. You like your first choice, but your second could be someone you hate just a bit less than your last choice. Ranked Choice doesn’t let you give that sort of information.
All the ballot tells us is that A is preferred to B. Is B a walk in the park? or is it bathing in shit? We don’t know.
That’s why ranked systems suck. Cardinal systems can tell you that a walk in the park is a solid 5 out of 5 and bathing in shit is a 0 out of 5. The other thing about a Cardinal system, you can have a bunch of 5 out of 5s on the ballot. Because there are a bunch of things you can be happy with. No artificial ranking needed.
The average voter doesn’t know the difference between an original or cardinal system, and when they hear “ranked choice voting,” they think of something more like range/score voting, not RCV. So whether you like it or not, the public has already essentially categorized it.
So the question is, do we try to change the vocabulary the public uses, or embrace it to push a related system they already think they’re talking about?
So I support movements like RCV because of the network effect, but I don’t actually support the specific solutions they put forward. As RCV gets more press, so will the problems with it, and that gives alternatives a platform. If you instead push against RCV, you need to start from scratch, and people are more likely imo to ignore you because you’re positioning yourself as an enemy of something they think is the way toward.
So no, the goal isn’t a discussion about the best solution, but a discussion about problems with the current system and potential solutions. RCV has started under discussion, and most people don’t really understand it anyway, so I’m going to use that terminology to redirect people to alternatives that I think are better.
The vocabulary is important. And the only people pushing “Ranked Choice” hare from Fairvote, and they mean RCV.
They want you to use the term “Ranked Choice” so that they can push RCV. That’s it. They know damn well that it’s a deeply flawed system, and don’t care, because they set themselves up as the Ranked Choice experts. They actually consult on elections using their system, and have done their own recounts that once changed the outcome of an election (30 days after the wrong candidate was sworn in).
So no. Don’t use vocabulary from a group pushing for something bad.
As to the problems of RCV getting more press as more people hear about it, that’s from pushback. See, Fairvote, the people who push RCV have a tendency to outright lie about the system, and then people like me have to spend hours explaining to people that RCV is a deeply broken system.
As the old phrase goes, “A lie is halfway round the world before the truth has got its boots on.”
The solution, then, don’t spread the lie. Don’t pretend that RCV is anything but a bad system.
Say STAR or Approval or whatever system you really want to push for. Don’t be lazy and give Fairvote more of a lead than they already have.
Again, we should not be pushing any form of RCV, not even as a bait and switch. It’s a bad system that is bad.
It’s not a category, it’s a bad voting system. Words have meanings, and sloppy use of those words helps no one.
Hell, STAR isn’t an Ordinal system (where a list is ranked in order), it’s a cardinal system (where preference is indicated independent of other options). So saying it’s a “Ranked Choice” system is just wrong on every front.
As was said in the video, there’s a problem when you rank choices against each other, where is the cutoff between like and hate? Some election formats force you to rank everyone on the ballot. You like your first choice, but your second could be someone you hate just a bit less than your last choice. Ranked Choice doesn’t let you give that sort of information.
All the ballot tells us is that A is preferred to B. Is B a walk in the park? or is it bathing in shit? We don’t know.
That’s why ranked systems suck. Cardinal systems can tell you that a walk in the park is a solid 5 out of 5 and bathing in shit is a 0 out of 5. The other thing about a Cardinal system, you can have a bunch of 5 out of 5s on the ballot. Because there are a bunch of things you can be happy with. No artificial ranking needed.
The average voter doesn’t know the difference between an original or cardinal system, and when they hear “ranked choice voting,” they think of something more like range/score voting, not RCV. So whether you like it or not, the public has already essentially categorized it.
So the question is, do we try to change the vocabulary the public uses, or embrace it to push a related system they already think they’re talking about?
So I support movements like RCV because of the network effect, but I don’t actually support the specific solutions they put forward. As RCV gets more press, so will the problems with it, and that gives alternatives a platform. If you instead push against RCV, you need to start from scratch, and people are more likely imo to ignore you because you’re positioning yourself as an enemy of something they think is the way toward.
So no, the goal isn’t a discussion about the best solution, but a discussion about problems with the current system and potential solutions. RCV has started under discussion, and most people don’t really understand it anyway, so I’m going to use that terminology to redirect people to alternatives that I think are better.
The vocabulary is important. And the only people pushing “Ranked Choice” hare from Fairvote, and they mean RCV.
They want you to use the term “Ranked Choice” so that they can push RCV. That’s it. They know damn well that it’s a deeply flawed system, and don’t care, because they set themselves up as the Ranked Choice experts. They actually consult on elections using their system, and have done their own recounts that once changed the outcome of an election (30 days after the wrong candidate was sworn in).
So no. Don’t use vocabulary from a group pushing for something bad.
As to the problems of RCV getting more press as more people hear about it, that’s from pushback. See, Fairvote, the people who push RCV have a tendency to outright lie about the system, and then people like me have to spend hours explaining to people that RCV is a deeply broken system.
As the old phrase goes, “A lie is halfway round the world before the truth has got its boots on.”
The solution, then, don’t spread the lie. Don’t pretend that RCV is anything but a bad system.
Say STAR or Approval or whatever system you really want to push for. Don’t be lazy and give Fairvote more of a lead than they already have.