2016 Ranked Voting Poll 2.0

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Where do you want Kasich in your list since he hasn't dropped out yet?

above trump

 

[jamil]

Current Tally

I've changed the tally a little from last time. I decided that % first place votes is kinda meaningless so I took it out of the spreadsheet and makes it easier to key in the tallies.

GEEK SPEAK: Donald Trump's numbers kinda illustrate the problem that ranked voting solves. Trump fans probably won't like this, but when you're trying to find the candidate(s) that best represent the will of the people, our first past the post system would put trump tied for 2nd place with Rubio. If this were the system we use (first past the post) Trump's 4 first place votes put him at 20% of the vote. Rubio would score the same. But Rubio's rank score is much higher than Trump's. National polls show that 1/3 like Trump, and 2/3's hate him. Fewer people hate Rubio. First past the post makes the less popular candidate place higher than 3 other candidates that are statistically more well liked. That's hardly fair.

The ranked voting gives a truer sense of how the candidates represent the sentiment of voters. Given the mix of INGO politics, I am not surprised by the rankings so far. Cruz is the undisputed INGO most favored. Hillary is the undisputed least favored. On INGO first past the post would have figured that out. But Trump is in a realistic place when you actually rank the will of the people.



Here's the tally so far:
20 voters:

Candidate	Rank Score	#1st place votes
Ted Cruz	174	10
Rubio	145	4
Ben Carson	144	0
Carly Fiorina	138	0
Donald Trump	135	4
John Kasich	115	1
Jeb Bush	88	1
Chris Christie	74	0
Bernie Sanders	60	0
Hillary Clinton	27	0

 

[jamil]

above trump

Sorry, I'll get you in the next tally. I was working on the writeup when you posted.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Sorry, I'll get you in the next tally. I was working on the writeup when you posted.

No problem...unless it ruined the stringent scientific methodology of your poll.

To your point about ranked voting. You were pretty adamant about people ranking every candidate. In the real world though, if ranked voting were in place, do we really think that every person would rank all the candidates? I wouldn't. In this case, I would probably rank my top 3, maybe 4 and leave the rest of my ballot unmarked. Those that weren't ranked by me would all get "zeros", wouldn't they?

 

[BugI02]

I would like to see 'None of the Above' always offered as an option, and if 'None of the Above' is ranked highest the primary would be null and void with proposals made at the convention to adopt proposed candidates not of the previous list. It could be a way to 'write in' someone like Ron Paul and it might encourage people to drop out sooner so as to be eligible for the undercard if N.o.t.A. wins the first round

 

[Lowe0]

Eh, technically, he gave them knowledge of good and evil, and presuming that they were already "good" implies that essentially the only new knowledge they gained was "evil". So if you want evil taught, well, okay then.

Nevertheless, if we do this kind of polling again, maybe there should be a SATAN option just for ****s and giggles. Not sure if it should be included in the tally or just as a line marking where the list becomes evil.

Much like a firearm, knowledge isn't good or evil, only what it's used for is.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I'm basing my preferences on who I feel like has even the remotest bit of honesty in their character.

... Yet you put Trump #1.

Okay.

 

[jamil]

No problem...unless it ruined the stringent scientific methodology of your poll.

To your point about ranked voting. You were pretty adamant about people ranking every candidate. In the real world though, if ranked voting were in place, do we really think that every person would rank all the candidates? I wouldn't. In this case, I would probably rank my top 3, maybe 4 and leave the rest of my ballot unmarked. Those that weren't ranked by me would all get "zeros", wouldn't they?

Yes, it's harder. But it is a better reflection of the will of the people and solves the biggest problems with our current system. Probably technology and ergonomic graphical voting systems could make ranked voting simpler. People here, for the most part, seem to be able to understand it. The hardest part is choking down the bottom half in some kind of order. It's hard to get past the idea of thinking you're voting for people you hate. But you're not. You're just saying this is the order of my preferred outcome.

Here's why I'm adamant about raking all the candidates. Let's compare "first past the post" (FPP) to "ranked order voting" (ROV), which is the voting system I'm doing here. The system that produces the outcome that best reflects the true will of the people should follow several criteria. For brevity I listed the two most contrasting.

Transitivity:
If candidate 'A' is "better" than candidate 'B' and 'B' is better than 'C', then candidate 'A' should damn well be better than 'C'.
ROV satisfies this as long as all candidates are ranked. If I allowed ranking any number of candidates, rather than all candidates, it can violate transitivity. Ranking all candidates guarantees transitivity.

With our current FPP, two-party system there's no guarantee of transitivity at all because we never compare all candidates to each other simultaneously, head to head. We split them up, in a process that makes that impossible. Whatever comparison there is, isn't all head to head, and it isn't simultaneous. Indiana rarely even gets a say. The only head to head competition happens when each party has made it's choice of their single candidate. There is no guarantee that the two left standing are the two that the most people like best.

Breaking the transitivity principle means that you often may end up having to vote for the least of two evils. Ranking every candidate ensures transitivity.

Neutrality:
First means that the system itself shouldn't favor candidate over another. Our current system of FPP definitely fails this. But ROV satisfies it.

Another aspect of neutrality, similar to transitivity, the lower ranked candidates shouldn't be able to affect the ranking between #1 and #2. FPP often fails this.

ROV can fail this too, but only if we consider ideological outcomes.

For example, let's pick a realistic primary/secondary dichotomy of INGO ideology. Non-establishment, and establishment conservatives. Liberals are the spoiler. In the dichotomy non-establishment INGOers probably outnumber the establishment ones by a good bit. These poll results so far support that with Cruz beating Rubio.

As it is now, there are so few liberals voting that they have no real impact on anything. So neutrality is achieved with ROV currently. No matter how liberals rank their candidates the non-establishment candidate still beats the establishment candidate. However, that could change with a few more liberals voting. Liberals will rank their liberal candidates first, which still have no hope of winning. Sanders and Hillary are at the very bottom overall. But the liberals will likely rank Rubio maybe somewhere in the middle, and Cruz near the bottom.

It's possible for there to be enough liberals to cause the top two to switch positions without being competitive themselves. In that scenario the group that isn't competitive at all causes the most represented ideology to lose to the second most represented ideology.

So, ROV can fail neutrality in fairly narrow circumstances. But there are ways to mitigate that in the way the rankings are calculated. For example, head to head performance can be figured into the ranking such that the ideological candidates that have no chance of winning have their tertiary rankings weighted less than candidates with the best head to head performances.

 

[jamil]

I would like to see 'None of the Above' always offered as an option, and if 'None of the Above' is ranked highest the primary would be null and void with proposals made at the convention to adopt proposed candidates not of the previous list. It could be a way to 'write in' someone like Ron Paul and it might encourage people to drop out sooner so as to be eligible for the undercard if N.o.t.A. wins the first round

Not applicable. Implementing ROV must necessarily eliminate primaries. All candidates of all parties participate on one election. I imagine rules would need to change to limit the number of eligible candidates to those who satisfy some level of demonstrated support.

Much like a firearm, knowledge isn't good or evil, only what it's used for is.

yeah, but if you're discussing something defined by someone else, you play by their definitions.

... Yet you put Trump #1.

Okay.

It's opinion. Rational or not.

 

[TopDog]

Fiorina
Cruz
Rubio
Carson
Kasich
Bush
Christie
Trump
Sanders
Clinton

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Rubio
Cruz
Fiorina
Kasich
Bush
Carson
Christie
Sanders - Clinton


Early on, Carson would have been higher... but he's just shown himself to not be ready for the highest office in the world. He's a great guy, I really do like him... and maybe he can have a political impact in someone's administration. But President.... not right now. Bush, Christie, and Kasich are all pretty much tied in that area of candidates that need to drop.

Fiorina will be gone after NH, since she's being left out of tomorrow's debate. I liked her early on, too... but she has no chance.

What about John McAfee?

 

[Tombs]

... Yet you put Trump #1.

Okay.

Yet you put Rubio in first... [Rubio's Voting Record]

Says one thing in debates, pretends to be on the side of liberty, goes all out authoritarian when he actually decides to do the job us tax payers pay him to do. Most the time he'd rather take your money and sit on his hands.


I'll give you this, McAfee would be interesting.

 

[jamil]

Rubio
Cruz
Fiorina
Kasich
Bush
Carson
Christie
Sanders - Clinton


Early on, Carson would have been higher... but he's just shown himself to not be ready for the highest office in the world. He's a great guy, I really do like him... and maybe he can have a political impact in someone's administration. But President.... not right now. Bush, Christie, and Kasich are all pretty much tied in that area of candidates that need to drop.

Fiorina will be gone after NH, since she's being left out of tomorrow's debate. I liked her early on, too... but she has no chance.

What about John McAfee?

Should I assume that Trump is last on your rankings?

 

[BugI02]

Need you ask?

 

[MisterChester]

Jamil, good example of showing how first past the post is a poor method of choosing someone.

 

[jamil]

Jamil, good example of showing how first past the post is a poor method of choosing someone.

Especially OUR system. One great tragedy of the two party system is that it assures that third parties will always have fringe candidates.

Ranked-order voting isn't perfect, as I pointed out in my novella. Also, with the current system it's certainly easier to pick just one of two main presidential candidates. But I just want something that fixes the two parties' hold on American politics. I think that's kinda what makes the elites always win. And they'd probably still win with ROV. Big money candidates will probably always have a big advantage over others. But giving other candidates a more equal chance to be heard is a lot better than what we have now.

 

[BugI02]

Especially OUR system. One great tragedy of the two party system is that it assures that third parties will always have fringe candidates.

Ranked-order voting isn't perfect, as I pointed out in my novella. Also, with the current system it's certainly easier to pick just one of two main presidential candidates. But I just want something that fixes the two parties' hold on American politics. I think that's kinda what makes the elites always win. And they'd probably still win with ROV. Big money candidates will probably always have a big advantage over others. But giving other candidates a more equal chance to be heard is a lot better than what we have now.

Or you could just get the money out of politics (I don't know how) leaving just the ideas. Prolly not

 

[jamil]

Or you could just get the money out of politics (I don't know how) leaving just the ideas. Prolly not

INGO wouldn't be pleased about what it would take to get money out of politics.

 

[jamil]

Need you ask?

I have maybe a slight suspicion that maybe he left Trump off on purpose. Just slight though. Kinda like just a wee little bitty suspicion. You know. Small.

 

[IndyDave1776]

INGO wouldn't be pleased about what it would take to get money out of politics.

There are only two ways to do it: Outlaw campaign spending altogether, which would allow the various media outlets to select our winners or have a government fund in which if I threw my hat in the ring, I would get as much money as Bush or Clinton, all paid out of the same socialized pot.