Criteria - FairVote and Equal.Vote
Mark Frohnmayer
Public
Seen by 29
Both FairVote and Equal.Vote have proposed criteria for measuring the political viability and efficacy of proposed voting reforms. As we all discuss various reform options, it'd be really great to at least agree at the outset on how we measure the reform options going forward.
FairVote's 3 Criteria:
Does the method violate the most basic principle of majority rule? In an election with two candidates, we believe the candidate preferred by a majority should always win.
Does the method require the winner to have core support? We believe a winner should be at least one voter’s first choice, meaning they would receive more than 0% in current rules.
Does the method promote sincere voting? Voters should be likely to vote sincerely, according to the method’s rules, and not lose out to tactical voters who vote insincerely.
Equal.Vote's 5 Criteria:
Equality: Does the voting system provide an equal weight vote to every voter?
Accuracy: How accurately does the voting system reflect the will of the people?
Simplicity: How easy is the system for voters to understand and cast ballots, and how easy is it for elections officials to tabulate and hand-recount?
Expressiveness: Can the voter express a nuanced opinion on the outcome?
Honesty: Can the voter safely express her honest opinion on the ballot, and likewise, to what level does the system disincentivize voters from strategically voting insincerely in order to produce a better outcome?
What are the right criteria to use for measurement? Do these capture the essence? Are any unnecessary? What is missing?
Aaron Wolf Wed 15 Feb 2017 6:37PM
if we are asking for a voter's second, third, fourth (and so on) choices, those additional preferences should also have weight.
Indeed, and the most serious problems with IRV come specifically from not following this well. In IRV, a candidate with fewer top votes gets eliminated first. Then, they are gone. Nobody else's 2nd or 3rd choices for that candidate ever get counted at all.
Adam Zielinski Fri 10 Mar 2017 10:11PM
It seems as though one of the main criteria that appeals to the IRV supporters who are anti-SRV, is that they perceive IRV as having a bias towards more "extreme" third party candidates, while also perceiving that SRV lacks this bias, and/or has a bias towards centrist / moderate candidates.
So they WANT there to be a bias, however slight, in favor of more extreme or strong third party candidates, and they want there to be a bias against moderate centrist candidates.
I think this speaks to the Equality and Expressiveness criteria.
Benjamin Amos · Wed 15 Feb 2017 10:11AM
Majority Rule.
UNIMPORTANT. What's best for the majority is not always what's best for the whole. Also, I think this criterion is worded poorly. With only two candidates, ANY reasonable voting system works, including Plurality.
Core Support.
UNIMPORTANT. To me, it doesn't matter how much weight a voter's first priority has in decision-making relative to her other priorities. However, if we are asking for a voter's second, third, fourth (and so on) choices, those additional preferences should also have weight. If they do have weight, then it should be possible to elect a candidate who is no one's #1 favorite. If they don't have weight ... why bother asking?
Sincere Voting.
IMPORTANT. As a gamer, I hate players who take advantage of or exploit known bugs in a game in order to gain an unfair advantage over others. Having spoken with some of those players, their usual defense is, "Everyone can do what we do. If they want things to be fair, they should use the exploits." There will always be people on both sides, each with their own understanding of fairness. The only way to cater to them all is to present them with a system that has as few exploits as possible.
Equality.
IMPORTANT. This is basic fairness.
Accuracy.
IMPORTANT. An electorate goes into each election with certain expectations based on polling, mass media, conversations with friends, etc. If the results of an election more or less match these expectations, the system is perceived as fair and sound. But if the results differ too much, the system may seem unfair or broken.
Simplicity.
VERY IMPORTANT. Humans fear what they do not understand.
Expressiveness.
VERY IMPORTANT. Voters need recognition. They need to know that they are being listened to and precisely understood. To feel truly heard, a voter needs the ability to speak as freely as possible. To know that they were understood, the election results should more or less match their expectations (see Accuracy).
Honesty.
IMPORTANT. See my arguments for Sincere Voting.
Other Criteria
There are other criteria out there. Wikipedia has its own list, for example. From that list, I think two criteria that would hold a lot of weight for voters are the Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives (IIA) and Cloneproof (Spoiler Effect) criteria.