Ah wait, I think I get what you mean now – voters won’t have to themselves type out a list from best to worst, casting one’s ballot would function just like our current IRV system where you copy the list template and fill in the numbers. Perhaps the wording of the bill (and also the existing section about IRV) should be changed to reflect this – the current wording still reflects the practice from like 2 years ago, when we didn’t have this template function and voters really did have to write out candidate’s names in descending order.
1 Like
If we’re concerned about accurately reflecting voters’ intentions, why not just allow ballot editing? I think the risk of strategic voting is reduced if all ballots are private.
I don’t see the point in just changing our voting system to increase the number of valid ballots. We shouldn’t just move the goalposts to increase turnout, we should aim to improve informed turnout. If we have uninformed voters casting invalid ballots, the solution isn’t just to make those ballots valid and pat ourselves on the back; that doesn’t meaningfully improve our electoral processes.
No, our current system does not require listing in descending order. For example, in the election for PM, assuming candidates A, B and C:
“Prime Minister
2 | A
1 | B
3 | C”
If I put it like that, my vote wouldn’t be canceled.
If we are going to use the numbers as we currently do, why are you wanting to call it an Extended Approval Vote? Why not just name it Preferential Vote or IRV?
I’ve mentioned before my support for some measure of ballot editing, and I’ll reaffirm that here. What are you thinking of in particular?
At the end of the day, you can:
- Have private ballots with ballot editing allowed.
- Have public ballots with ballot editing not allowed.
- Hage private ballots with ballot editing not allowed.
- Have public ballots with ballot editing allowed.
Option 1 is a simple tweak to the laws.
Option 2 is essentially the status quo.
Options 3 and 4 are the hardest to sell for either a lack of flexibility or security.
We should be deciding which option we prefer most first; then we should be deciding what method of vote counting we do.
I support option one and allowing the current vote-counting system to remain in place (aside from adopting resolutions to elect the Chair of the Assembly, I think that is dope).
1 Like
Tbh, I don’t care if the vote will be public or not, but the IRV method must certainly continue and, even more so, be applied to all elected positions (Delegate and PM) made here on the forum.
Legally, it does. Article I, Section (6)a1. of the Elections Act currently provides: “Under Instant-Runoff Voting . . . [a]s their ballot, a voter lists any candidates they wish in descending order of preference.” That doesn’t reflect our current practice, in which voters use the pre-made template. Which is why Anjo suggested above that we update both the current IRV provision and the proposed Expanding Approval Voting provision to account for our use of templates.
I am fully in support of private ballots, but somewhat ambivalent on ballot editing. My question is–how frequently would ballot editing matter in the context of private voting? The only way in which the errors in voters’ ballots were discovered this time around is via public reaction. I would not support a system in which the EC “audits” private ballots and makes a determination as to whether the voter intentionally sought to spoil their ballot and then reaches out to those they think did not.
I will update the proposal now to account for the passage of the election timing changes, but otherwise it is unchanged. I will wait for more discussion before making any substantive changes.
I don’t think it would have much usage, honestly, which is fine by me. The body of citizens (anybody got a catchy name yet?) could discuss the election as normal and someone realizes they cast their ballot incorrectly, or something else comes up that completely tarnishes the standing of a candidate that can legally remain in the race. Either situation is relatively unlikely, one due to standardizing the ballot and one due to odds, but still, I think, appropriate times for a ballot edit. Perhaps you could limit the edit to a single time executed before the polls close, which would be easy to spot and check.
I don’t see the need to update our current system, there is nothing wrong with IRV. Again, you seem to want to require ranking in descending order for conventional elections and that’s not good. The text doesn’t specify which election this will be used for, but I may have misinterpreted it. In any case, I would not be in favor of using this voting model on any occasion.
Expanding Approval Voting it’s just a more confusing, complicated, and therefore more error-prone IRV.
That’s literally what we use for PM elections.
In practice no.
How? You have a list of candidate and you rank them.
You rank them but it doesn’t have to be in any order, for example, I can vote like this:
“2 | Candidate 1
1 | Candidate 2
3 | Re-Open Nominations”
I fail to see how that isn’t ranking them in descending order of preference. You are quite literally saying which are your preferences from 1 to Nth.
I imagine that, if it were in descending order of preference, I would put:
“3 | Re-Open Nominations
2 | Candidate 1
1 | Candidate 2”
The actual order in which you place each row of candidate is irrelevant, you are still ranking them.
Yes, but requesting descending order doesn’t make sense, it will only cause more errors and perhaps lead to the vote being invalidated.
That’s the whole point. Ranking the candidates from most favorable to least is the same as ranking them in descending order.
Oh, right, I’m sorry for the confusion. So I only have one question left: what is the difference between IRV and extended approval vote?