Why the Way We Vote Is Terrible

[@iammrbeat]

What is the best voting method?

[@zanytime]

Approval voting

[@seanaaron7888]

Direct democracy. Pick average, random people from the population to count the votes.

[@Rileylego-fq6wc]

The candidates fight for the throne

[@profilepicture828]

Proportional but with Alternative Vote

[@delasee1383]

Electoral College minus the winner-takes-all on the State level with approval/score/ranked voting on the Federal level.

[@ranelgallardo7031]

Plurality voting is basically how the two party system stays alive

[@iammrbeat]

Definitely

[@jevinday]

exactly

[@RealTalkChannelRTC]

@@jarl8815 I looked on Wikipedia and Sweden has a proportional election system (I live in Germany. We also have such a system). This way voters don't have problems to vote for a third party because every party thats get 4% is represented in the parliament. In Germany for example left-leaning voters can decide if they want to vote for the Social Democrats, the Democratic Socialist or The Greens (or they vote for the liberal FDP or other more right leaning parties). Let me explain the American problem. Let's say Joe Biden is running against Trump in the 2020 US election and would win (I think that's unlikely but that's not the point). Let's say he gets 55% of the vote and wins against Trump 45% (if we ignore the electorial college). Now let's do the same things again but Bernie Sanders is running this time as a third party candidate. Sanders gets 20% Biden this time only gets 25% (because the more progessive voters and the Democratic Socialists support Sanders over Biden). Trump would have won because he would still get 45% (unlikely because some Trump voters would have also voted for Bernie but just for this example). This has already happened in American history. In 1912 former republican president Theodore Roosevelt split from the republicans and run as the candidate of the Progressive Party. Roosevelt and Taft got 51% (+ there was a forth guy that run for the Socialist party and got 6%) of the vote but the democratic candidate Woodrow Wilson the election in a landslide (he got 41% of the vote). If the same election had happened in Sweden or Germany. Republicans and Progessives could have formed a coalition (the government) and the Democrats and Socialist would have been in the opposition. That's why Sweden or Germany have (far) more than 2 "big" parties.

[@hintofdwight]

@@sominboy2757 I don't know if that would necessarily be a good thing

[@sominboy2757]

@@hintofdwight possible solution President- Abolish electoral college and go to 2 round system. If candidate and running mate dosent get more than 50 percent plus one vote then cut it down to top 2 and have a runoff and let plurality take over. Already used in Louisiana for governors races and mississippi for senate races House- Mixed Member Proportional(MMP) . You get 2 votes. 1 for an individual candidate plus one for party vote. In this case it would increase the house from 435 to 485(current house make up plus one party vote per state)- Used in the lower house of the German and New Zealand parliments Senate- keep same in terms of election but overhaul opperational policy By doing this the house makeup would help break up the republicans strongholds in the rocky mountain great plains and southwest cd's and replace them with libertarians(john mccain would have been a libertarian if it was a major party) and alot of the west coast would put more labor party, socialist party and green party members in congress. Yes america would have a 5 party system but if the Republicans and Democrats would go from big tent to center left and right parties they would still be the 2 dominant parties, things would get done better and new ideas would be brought to congress.

[@JMM33RanMA]

I used to defend the electoral college and the FPP [First Past the Post = Plurality Voting]. I thought it prevented weak governments like those in Italy and Israel. My opinion began to change with the unconstitutional resolution of the Bush-Gore election, and hardened when I realized that voters in small rural states are overrepresented in both congress and the electoral college. Here are the disgraceful figures. Wyoming, pop. 573,720 representatives 1, senators 2 EC votes 3 California, Pop.39,777,000 reps 53, senators 2 EC votes 55 If every 573, 721 CA voters had 1 representative CA would have 59 reps, not 39. CA is grossly underrepresented, in fact every state with more than 4 million voters is underrepresented, and every state with under 2 million voters is overrepresented. This means that the Electoral College is also grossly undemocratic. FPP [PV] is also undemocratic, as shown in this video. Thanks Mr. Beat. May I also suggest that you deal with the underrepresentation scam that I have shown?

[@iammrbeat]

Great comment....yeah I'd love to tackle underrepresentation some time. Were your CA numbers correct, though?

[@JMM33RanMA]

@@iammrbeat Here is my table. The figures may be a year or so out of date. Not to mention nobody should let my math go by unchecked. Kansas is short 1, Massachusetts is short 3. Both Red and Blue States are shortchanged, this is disgraceful! This is shocking! Everyone viewing this whose state is underrepresented should contact their congress people!!!!!! STATE POPULATION Present Representation Fair no. of reps California 39,776,830 53 69.3 [-16] Texas 28,704,330 36 50 [-14] Florida 21,312,211 27 37 [-10] New York 19,862,512 27 34.6 [-8] Pennsylvania 12,823,989 18 22.4 Illinois 12,768,320 18 22.3 Ohio 11,694,664 16 20.4 Georgia 10,545,138 14 18.4 N. Carolina 10,390,149 13 18.1 Michigan 9,991,177 14 17.4 New Jersey 9,032,872 12 15.74 Virginia 8,525,660 11 14.9 Washington 7,530,552 10 13.13 Arizona 7,123,898 9 12.52 Massachusetts 6,895,917 9 12.0 Tennessee 6,782,564 9 11.8 Indiana 6,699,629 9 11.7 Missouri 6,135,888 8 10.7 Maryland 6,079,602 8 10.6 Wisconsin 5,818,049 8 10.14 Colorado 5,684,203 7 9.9 Minnesota 5,628,162 8 9.8 South Carolina 5,088,916 7 8.9 Alabama 4,888,949 7 8.5 Louisiana 4,682,509 6 8.16 This is undemocratic and must change. STATE POPULATION Reps now Fair Kentucky 4,472,265 6 7.8 Oregon 4,199,563 5 7.32 Oklahoma 3,940,521 5 6.87 Connecticut 3,588,683 5 6.25 Iowa 3,160,553 4 5.5 Utah 3,159,345 4 5.5 Nevada 3,056,824 4 5.3 Arkansas 3,020,327 4 5.3 Mississippi 2,982,785 4 5.2 Kansas 2,918,515 4 5.0 New Mexico 2,090,708 3 3.64 Nebraska 1,932,549 3 3.37 West Virginia 1,803,077 3 3.14 Idaho 1,753,860 2 3.0 Hawaii 1,426,393 2 2.5 New Hampshire 1,350,575 2 2.3 Maine 1,341,582 2 2.3 Montana 1,062,330 1 1.85 Rhode Island 1,061,712 2 1.9 Delaware 971,180 1 South Dakota 877,790 1 North Dakota 755,238 1 Alaska 738,068 1 District of Columbia 703,608 Vermont 623,960 1 Wyoming 573,720 1 Why should one voter in Wyoming have 60+ times the electoral or congressional power of one Californian‽

[@brandonbonett6416]

We need a Proportional system like Spain's and Germany's! It's the best way to save the country!

[@quentenwalker1385]

There are equally stuffed up Presidential, FFP systems in the world. Weak governments are not always minority or coalition governments, nor are minority or coalition governments always weak - look at New Zealand, Australia, UK under Cameron, Israel (a weak government - really!), it depends on the loyalty of the coalition partners.

[@JMM33RanMA]

@@quentenwalker1385 Israel's government depends on the power plays between self-interested factions, in this respect it resembles the Italian and French governments of the past. Ask secular Israelis about how well their government functions for them and you will get an earful of how the ultra-orthodox take advantage of the situation to maintain outrageous privileges. That is the weakness of representing every faction, and always having to make coalitions, often by corrupt deals. Do you remember that past French or italian governments only lasted a few months? The French haven't had this problem since the 4th Republic, but the Italians have had it in the last few decades. Parliamentary systems can have this weakness, look at the UK and Brexit! Making that momentous a decision on a very slim margin of victory and in a multi-party government has led to a very bad situation in which the public is so divided that the poles show the pro and con sentiments flipping constantly. The US FPP indirect system is no longer functioning as intended. It needs a major overhaul, and the electoral college must be scrapped. Our founders were opposed to political parties, but their wishes didn't survive into the second administration. The present format tends to force two party government. Our coalitions are pre-election rather than post-election as in most countries, that is, the two main parties are coalitions of factions. The problem with the Democratic Party is that it has more diversity and more factions, whereas the Republican Party is more like a Communist party with more central control and rigid adherence to dogma--these statements can be clearly seen in operation nowadays.

[@GiffysChannel]

I only have experience with "ranked choice voting" as we call it here in Maine and I like it. I think it's a neat way to do it, it allows people to loosen up and pick who they really want, and it has, you know... math

[@GiffysChannel]

I just finished some research and Approval Voting actually seems like the best. The instant runoff voting system doesn't guarantee a majority.

[@iammrbeat]

You're from Maine? That explains why you're so awesome.

[@GiffysChannel]

@@iammrbeatI'm going to rank choose vote this the 👏best👏compliment👏ever []-)

[@felixfeliciano7011]

@@GiffysChannel Instant Runoff guarantees a majority - it is the requirement actually as the lowest candidates are eliminated until a majority is achieved. What it doesn't do is promote more than 2 parties. IRV/AV are really just slightly better versions of Plurality and its biggest draw is that it - mostly - eliminates the spoiler effect (in theory, but practice is more complicated). They are the "gate way drug" of electoral systems.

[@uriargaman7241]

Elect electors through STV.

[@rangermike5571]

Andrew yang is the only presidential candidate on the stage advocating for ranked choice 😤. Yang gang

[@theeyehead3437]

Not true. Bernie advocates ranked choice too. As a side note, the president can't do much about changing our electoral system, because it is under the control of state governments. www.fairvote.org/u_s_bernie_sanders

[@Pokelova]

I took part in my first ranked choice election recently, it was a nice change.

[@iammrbeat]

Where at? Out of curiosity...

[@Pokelova]

@@iammrbeat New Zealand, but it was just a local election, not national level.

[@SamAronow]

Funnily enough, Israeli voting reformers want to establish *some* form of geographic representation because the northern and southern periphery are overlooked. I'm working on a video about that right now! Thankfully, nobody is seriously touting first-past-the-post voting.

[@iammrbeat]

I'd love to see that video when you finish it!

[@SamAronow]

@@iammrbeat Thanks. I hope to have it out sometime in the next month or so. The research has required a lot more math than usual.

[@vallraffs]

That is interesting. The israeli election system is actually the one thing I really like or respect about the country. I really admire how it is a singular election which treats the country as a single unit. Also love the Netherlands for doing that. To me it's absolutely the best way to structure a democracy, because it lives up to the promise of 'one person-one vote' and the majoritarian principle.

[@jeremiahakin3593]

Thanks, Matt! I'm having 7th and 8th grade students look at informational texts on elections in the states this week, and I think this will be a perfect addition!

[@jayzee1682]

I really like this video. The first time I hear about different types of voting was from presidential candidate Andrew yang he wants "rank choice voting" when I heard him talk about I was shocked that we didn't have it yet because you know Americans love Choices lol we do!

[@iammrbeat]

#yanggang Yeah I'm glad he's on board with it. Thanks for the nice comment!

[@jkitty542]

I like IRV for single winner races and MMP or STV for multi winner races.

[@HayTatsuko]

1. Voting should extend across an entire week. 2. Voting should be done by the ranked method, and weighted accordingly. 3. Voting should be repeated until there is a clear winner via the ranked method. 4. Voting should never involve proxies. Abolish the Electoral College.

[@jevinday]

Great video, Mr. Beat! I didn't know what plurality voting is until this, but it makes sense that it's flawed. I think Instant Runoff sounds like the best way to vote. The electoral college is absurd and broken. Therefore, I totally support voting reform. In the last presidential election I voted for who I thought was "the lesser of two evils" just like you said, and it definitely was NOT the way i would have preferred to vote. I really just voted to vote against the candidate i didn't want to win, but I didn't like the candidate I voted for either!

[@iammrbeat]

Yeah, I usually end up voting for a third party candidate since I live in a red state.

[@MicahScottPnD]

"Lesser of two evils" has confusion baked into it. "Let's see, i have to vote against the person i don't want the most... wait, did i say that right?" vs. "i like THAT candidate"

[@adamwheelerproductions1607]

I live in Maine, and plurality voting has been a problem here before. Back 2010, the Governor election was a 4 way race between Paul LePage (R), Eliot Cutler (I), Libby Mitchell (D), and Shawn Moody (I). Incumbent Governor John Baldacci (D) was not able to run for re-election due to term limits. LePage won the election without even getting close to the majority of votes, he won with only 37.6% of the vote. Four years later in 2014, he won re-election against Mike Michaud (D) and Eliot Cutler again. This time, he got 48.2% of the vote, which wasn't as bad, but still didn't win the majority. Paul LePage was elected Governor twice, and never won the majority of the vote. We do have ranked choice voting up here now after referendum question 5 passed in the 2016 election, but it's only used for national elections (President, U.S. Senate, U.S. House), not statewide (Governor, State Legislature) or local elections. Hopefully that will change soon.

[@brandonbonett6416]

The best Voting system is the Alternative Runoff System for the President and a Proportional Representation in Congress! Like Australia and Ireland. The current system we have is trash😒 #Democracy #changethesystem

[@iammrbeat]

Yeah Ireland and Australia get a lot of things right.

[@parker_1543]

@@iammrbeat Ireland and Australia aren't the only places that have used interesting multi-winner district voting methods. Before Sweden switched to pure party list proportional representation, they used to use sequential proportional approval voting: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequential_proportional_approval_voting SPAV demonstrated with Canadian political parties: kzbin.info/www/bejne/fZ_WmKJpr52If8k It's worth mentioning that the video is incorrectly titled "Proportional Approval Voting", not "Sequential Proportional Approval Voting" as it should be. Proportional approval voting actually refers to another method that is a refinement of sequential proportional approval voting. The actual proportional approval voting method (which is much harder to calculate because it requires comparing every possible election outcome): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_approval_voting (it's a special case of harmonic voting (rangevoting.org/QualityMulti.html) for when approval ballots are used and the Δ parameter equals 1).

[@MrDuckeyPants]

CGP Grey has entered the chat

[@ho-hyongyoo3251]

Oh. What a brave soul. Who doesn't fear for the demonetization. Love from South Korea.

[@iammrbeat]

Hey Yoo! Oh this one isn't as controversial. It's not demonetized. However, as random and frustrating as KZbin can be, that could easily change in the future. :)

[@ho-hyongyoo3251]

@@iammrbeat Well it is politics so fingers crossed!

[@KanyeTheGayFish69]

Ho-Hyong Yoo why are you watching a video about American politics if you aren’t American

[@ho-hyongyoo3251]

@@KanyeTheGayFish69 South Koreans both right and left have this tendency to import what ever is hot in America. So... Qanon and Direct Action now is a thing in South Korea. Fun.

[@SirTravis-vn6yp]

@@KanyeTheGayFish69 to be honest I actually encourage it so when foreigners are looking in about our country they know what is true and what is false information

[@fryphilip7474]

What needs to change about voting is that you need to explain there stances and policies and pro and cons about them, were not picking prom king and queen

[@carschmn]

Another benefit of other voting methods s candidates have to be civil to be each other because if they are too mean to the other candidates, they won’t be their voters’ second choices.

[@iammrbeat]

Great point!

[@quentenwalker1385]

Great observation.

[@mightygnome]

While I disagree with you about the electoral college, I fully agree with you about plurality voting.

[@ryantyler9677]

I've actually drawn maps of a world I thought of recently. And recently I gave my "home territory" it's government system. It is a Constitutional Monarchy with a bicameral parliament. For the lower house, I gave it RCV as they were covering fewer people. The upper house would use a nationwide popular vote and seated based on a proportional system. Example: Progressive party wins 36% of the national vote, they get 36% of the seats. The Senate candidates are determined by a Party List. Just imagine Germany's Bundestag but the methods are split in two. My idea behind the Senate having a nation wide popular vote is partly ceremonial. I feel like it will give a sense of unity to the process as there is no "state-by-state" vote but a true NATIONAL vote. On that note, I feel I should say that simply changing how we vote for president is the equivalent of putting a band-aid on a gunshot wound. The country has too many problems for a simple fix.

[@kk8490]

I’ve never heard about score voting or approve voting before, but they seem really interesting. Are there any countries where they’re used?

[@MichaelKovnat]

If there was no electoral college, wouldn't New York City and Los Angeles County pick every president and then it wouldn't be worth voting if you live in Michigan?

[@PremierCCGuyMMXVI]

I like rank choice voting (instant runoff), majority rule, however score voting is pretty good tho is a bit weird. I think RCV is the way to go.

[@pm5206]

A blanket or jungle primary is an option also. California, Louisiana and Washington has blanket and jungle primary.

[@joerogain8242]

Completely agree with you Mr. Beat, wish we had the option of more than two candidates.

[@vdoggydogg3922]

We do, its just that two parties are the most dominant.

[@vision-gc4hy]

California uses Rank Choice voting for primaries which some call "Jungle Primaries." The problem with the alternative voting methods is campaigns tend to game them. If there is a clear lead candidate, the secondary candidates form agreements form agreements in which they agree to push their supporters to rank one another as their second choice etc. Also in a state like California the alternative methods freeze out Republicans and often a race for Senator is between two Democrats since the Republican won't rank higher. Fine with me because I'm a Democrat, but I can see how it's frustrating and possibly not fair to Republicans.

[@thescott7539]

California doesn't use Rank Choice, they use a top-two primary. You don't pick multiple candidates, you choose 1. Top two vote getters go regardless of party. It's essentially turned California into a one party state. Well that and the exodus of republicans to other states, sanctuary city rules and the GOP virtually giving up in the state.

[@SilvanaDil]

For a Repubic of 50 states, the Electoral College makes more sense than the popular vote. As for replacing plurality -- ranking voting is how mediocre films like "Green Book" win Best Picture.

[@iammrbeat]

lol that movie was definitely overrated.

[@Elispoon23]

I like score voting the most it's also in my opinion the simplest to understand

[@basedgodstrugglin]

1:14 beautiful. I don’t know if you’ll see this comment, but that reference was solid

[@bobbyferg9173]

I think approval voting is the most likely method to be implemented. This is largely in part that it is the simplest and more complex voting systems are likely to deter some people.

[@tylerborgard8805]

I prefer score voting (also called range voting), and while IRV isn't exactly terrible, I find it extremely overrated. In my mind, IRV is basically just a voting system jury-rigged to avoid the particular problem of "two and a half candidates". That is, two major candidates and one minor candidate who gets a significant number of votes (but not nearly enough to win). But people's preferences often don't work like that. We only think they do because we're used to the strategic effects of plurality voting. How does IRV react to an election with 3 or more competitive candidates? If the whole point of election reform is to give third party candidates more of a chance, then you have to ask this question. But no one ever seems to investigate this scenario, and I find that really annoying. The most glaring problem with IRV is that your second choice is *only* taken into account if your favorite candidate is eliminated before your second choice is. That's a rather strong condition, so a lot of information expressed on the ballots is effectively wasted and doesn't contribute to the result. (Sound familiar?) Score voting doesn't have this problem. What if a "consensus candidate" gets a ton of second place votes but very few first place votes? He might get eliminated very early in IRV despite being very well liked. However, doing this election with score voting would result in him getting a lot of high scores (perhaps a lot of voters give him an 8/10 and their favorite a 10/10), so he would have a better chance. Another problem with IRV (and any other voting system that uses ranked ballots) is that you can't express the intensity of your preferences. Suppose an election has 3 candidates: God, a human, and the devil. No matter how good or bad the human is, your ranking will still be God > human > devil. But your opinion on the election will still vary a lot depending on who that human is. Is he a saint, making this a "greater of two goods" situation? Is he a tyrant, making this a "lesser of two evils" situation? Or is he just your average Joe? Score voting actually allows you to express this kind of information in a way that can influence the election. The intensity of your preferences is a lot more important than we give it credit for, and it's a real shame that plurality and IRV don't allow you to express it.

[@ostrobothnian9995]

Daily remainder this only needs to happen for the presidential, senate and gubernational elections. House elections need proportionality.

[@mathiashundstad8873]

I’m not american so my opinion should not be valued as much as other people in this thread, but I vastly prefer irv to score voting. Why? Because in score voting an angry polarizing figure may get a lot 10’s and 1’s averaging to a 5,5 while a moderate might get similar responses. However irv makes candidates appealing to a broad centrist base much stronger since they may lose the left or right but they’ll scoop up a lot of second choise votes

[@mathiashundstad8873]

Note: I’m not centrist myself and while this will show the strength of partisanship in western countries I’d rather prefer a centre government rather than the wing I’m not a part of rule half the time

[@iammrbeat]

That is a really good point.

[@quentenwalker1385]

Agreed - what country, as a matter of interest?

[@mathiashundstad8873]

Norway

[@115zombies935]

Sounds like that makes score voting better to me. Someone who is polarizing and only liked by half of people should get a middle score. Someone who is like more universally should gets a higher score than that. IRV is just as bad as plurality, it reinforces the two party system.

[@Nothing_Here]

I say f**k the plurality vote and chage it to proportional voting

[@alexanderwinn2896]

Just have preferential voting (rank choice voting to my understanding). Probably will not occur in the two party system given there is an inherent incentive for both major parties to retain first past the post.

[@iammrbeat]

What do you think about approval voting and score voting?

[@lukedetering4490]

I prefer the idea of instant runoff voting, because I don't fall comfortably into the Democrat or Republican camps. So having an instant runoff might help people pick someone who is genuinely smart and has great ideas instead of voting for a candidate on party lines. Not saying Democrats and Republicans don't have valid ideas, but they don't always represent the ideas that majority of Americans want. Having more voices and realistically winnable candidates might help keep the polarization down and make politicians compromise more.

[@iammrbeat]

I agree. I think most Americans aren't that partisan.

[@115zombies935]

IRV forces a two party system just as much as plurality

[@115zombies935]

@Theodore Roosevelt rangevoting.org/TarrIrv.html

[@rubik5046]

Better than China's voting system tho🤣

[@alexiarai955]

Lmao what voting system 🤣 😂 😅

[@blueciffer1653]

@@alexiarai955 The voting system that allows them to elect Mayors, Governors and national reps

[@jwil4286]

no voting system is perfect. even plurality voting has positives that other systems don't. as talked about in Brain4Breakfast's (may he rest in peace) "America is on Easy Mode" video, plurality voting tends to make it harder for extreme candidates to win elections, which while it makes seriously overhauling the system harder, it protects what a country has going for it (and as he said in the video, America has a LOT going for it)

[@brendan594]

Change Election Day to a weekend. We also need to do a much much better job at promoting people to vote. 2020 had the best voter turnout in a really long time and it was only 66% of registered voters which really isn’t good. We gotta start teaching more people that politics is important and that voting really is a big deal. That’s what I think

[@kevinpark55]

I like score voting best, then ranked/instant runoff voting and finally approval voting in that order. Approval voting doesn't let you give as much influence in terms of allowing you to say the degree to which you like a candidate. Score and instant runoff voting allow for this statement of degree, but instant runoff only allows you to express this degree of your preference of candidates in relative terms, meaning comparing one candidate to another. Score voting allows you to express your opinion of each candidate in absolute terms, which is why it is best for the voter.

[@joshuaa7266]

Curious to see how score voting would work. I would expect a lot of people to just put the maximum value on everyone they wanted, would there be a way to account for that so that people who choose more moderate numbers aren't drowned out?

[@iammrbeat]

That's an upcoming video!

[@HerbGamer0]

America should adopt Proportional representation!

[@parker_1543]

But what type of proportional representation? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_electoral_systems#Compliance_of_non-majoritarian_party_agnostic_multi-winner_methods www.kialo.com/the-us-should-adopt-a-better-voting-system-for-elected-bodies-5589?path=5589.0

[@HerbGamer0]

@@parker_1543 When I think of the ideal proportional representation I would like in the US I think something like Germany's electoral system. Where you get 2 votes. One vote directly for the candidate and a second vote a party list and you vote for a party

[@parker_1543]

@@HerbGamer0 That method is called mixed member proportional or MMP for short and many of it's advantages and disadvantages are listed in one of the two links I provided: www.kialo.com/the-us-should-adopt-a-better-voting-system-for-elected-bodies-5589?path=5589.0 I have also went into detail about some of the things I don't like about the system in comparison to other proportional methods in this thread: forum.electionscience.org/t/mmps-fatal-weakness/337 When it comes to proportional methods, I prefer methods that don't have any party list mechanic at all (MMP still uses party lists for some of the seats). These types of methods are sometimes referred to as party agnostic (meaning it is indifferent to parties) proportional methods. Here are just a few of the many proportional methods that don't have any party list mechanic: Re-weighted Range Voting: kzbin.info/www/bejne/oZK9c2tqqs6jfM0 Proportional Approval Voting: kzbin.info?search_query=proportional+approval+voting Harmonic Voting: rangevoting.org/QualityMulti.html

[@stevendrumm4957]

I agree. There should be ranked choice voting.

[@DeadEndeth]

Fantastic video! Hopefully, someday, we'll progress to a better voting method, but I fear our 2 big parties in the U.S hold so much sway that it'll probably never happen.

[@sophovot5079]

Approval voting => the most middle of the road candidate wins Score voting => you give your candidate 10 points and everyone else 0 and we're back to plurality Runoff voting sounds good though

[@iammrbeat]

Your assumption about score voting is misguided. Most people aren't as partisan as you think and like more than one candidate.

[@quentenwalker1385]

@@iammrbeat Surely instant runoff and score voting do roughly the same thing.

[@115zombies935]

This is simply false. If you give all the people you like 10, and all the people you dislike 0 then it’s turned into approval voting which is still fine. There is no incentive to give someone you like a 0. Score is a better version of approval voting and is overall the best voting system. Runoff voting is bad and not much better than plurality.

[@codygriffin299]

Approval voting and Score voting: solid choices. Instant run off voting: electoral Trojan horse. DON’T DO IT! When you can HURT your candidate’s chances by ranking then HIGHER ~4% of the time, something’s seriously wrong.

[@n484l3iehugtil]

How?

[@alanivar2752]

@@n484l3iehugtil Favorite Betrayal Criterion Monotonicity Criterion Participation Criterion

[@andrewmathieson8579]

As an Australian, I am happy with instant runoff voting (called here preferential voting) because it’s more representative of everyone’s preference. You can still vote for your favourite but if not the majority agree with you, your second choice may count.

[@str.77]

My impression us that the visual examples do not fit the spoken text, from the plurality being actually 52%, to a supposedly large centrist field that was actually smaller than either extreme or third party candidates being all alternative candidates from one party.

[@mechanussunrise]

Proportional representation!

[@ADarnSmore]

before watching your why do people not vote video i honestly thought that ranked choice voting was how the presidential election already worked because it only makes the most sense to me

[@Senorjadenw]

Is anybody here after they tried rank choice voting for the New York mayoral race and it turned out to be a huge debacle?

[@GeneralPJ]

I was thinking the same thing

[@iyoutubeperson4336]

Yep, imagine how stressful a recount would be

[@AussieDew01]

For single person positions (such as a President or single member district) Instant Run Off voting is by far the fairest and simplest for voters and for counting. For Congress or Parliament Mixed Member Proportional is perfect for retaining local representatives and proportionally representing the popular vote.

[@josephiffrig9154]

I personally like score voting. If you want to change the system, it needs to be very, very, very easy to explain. Besides, people love ranking things (top tens) and this would include as many candidates as possible. Win win.

[@MicahScottPnD]

I just saw an incredibly concise and clear explanation of rank choice by MPR, about 2 minutes long. Excellent, if you can find it. Id include the link if i knew how to do that

[@openclassusa3534]

Hello, Mr. Beat: Thank you for all your great content. In this particular case though, I m afraid all the solutions proposed would make a system that is already shady, a more complicated one. As a kind request, please consider making a video that answers the question : WHY SHOULD WE VOTE IN THE FIRST PLACE?

[@priestofronaldalt]

You can't get shadyee than it already is

[@spencersivertson9321]

Because the alternative is an autocracy. In an autocracy, the leader's interest's do not align with the people's so they are worse places to live.

[@adan9280]

I strongly disagree with your observation that plurality voting causes polarizing candidates to be elected. Generally the politics of candidates of either party have a trend across presidencies in a certain direction, and for the last 30 years democrats have moved to the right quite substantially. If it weren't for plurality voting, the democrats would have been much more resembling of european politicians on the political spectrum.

[@AdamSmith-gs2dv]

Moved right? AOC and Ilhan Omar would not be representatives over 30 years ago. The Dems have moved of the wacky socialist deep end

[@adan9280]

@@AdamSmith-gs2dv illhan Omar and Alexandria ocasio Cortez are the beginning of the modernization of politics in america: politicians that actually represent policies that the people want. In reality, they're much more similar in politics to LBJ, FDR, and JFK than Obama or Clinton.

[@iammrbeat]

I think Democrats have moved to the right, though, because the entire country has shifted to the right. You can see now that the pendulum is swinging back to the left just in the last three years.

[@Avi2Nyan]

Yeah, even the more left leaning candidates aren't that far left. The left has actually slid more and more to the right over time. So there's more a devide of centre-maybe-a-bit-leftish vs right

[@vallraffs]

Absolutely. The fear of polarizing because parties will embody the extremes on the political spectrum is incorrect. It relies on a flawed view of parties and how they behave. With a two party system, there is no reason to think you'd get a far left and a far right party. What history has shown is far more likely to happen is you get two centrist parties who have a monopoly on political power and thus act as a cartel, preventing other parties from getting into power. It enshrines a particular order into power. Why should the two parties ever switch ideologies to something more radical when the current system works so well for them, and lets them stay rich, powerful and influential, being elected back into office every other election or so? Also there is the problem of saying most voters are centrists or moderates and want candidates and policies that are in the middle of the left-right spectrum. That's also untrue. Most of the population in any country is not staunchly centrist, but apathetic and disconnected. They are less ideological or politically active, not equally ideological but for a centrist ideology. People who get engaged in politics and start to educate themselves and get informed almost always pick a side. The people in the middle are mostly folks who haven't made up their minds yet, or aren't interested enough to want to.

[@Sfingle]

I meant to vote for Tim Bob but I accidentally voted for Steve Bob...really confusing turnout name wise that year, I mean what are the odds.

[@flux202]

I love how he had, "Steve Bob" and "Bob", I don't know if it was intentional this represents how the GOP and the donkeys are literlly like the same party in different colours.

[@lucasbergey]

I think we need to vote about which voting system we will use to vote on the best voting system....Oh darn, now we are back to where we started.

[@edgymeerkat4290]

1:13 epic OutKast reference

[@lordbrain5263]

It’s how we got stuck to choose between Hillary or trump

[@lpphillyfan]

My issue with approval voting is it could still incentivise people to vote out of fear. For an example: In the scenario that Bernie Sanders ran as a third party in the 2016 election, I would have "approved" both Bernie and Hillary in order to block Trump from winning. However, the fact that I much prefer Bernie to Hillary wouldn't show up in my voting..

[@blackknightjack3850]

That said, score voting is the only system here that really gets rid of the problems caused by plurality voting. The problem is that it requires more of an informed and thoughtful populace than we have any reason to expect.

[@andrewmartin2321]

I think the voting system should have the defining goal that if candidate X is preferred by a majority of people over candidate Y, then candidate Y should lose. As I understand it (i haven’t done the math, nor seen anyone discussing this) this means that the candidate that was ranked first by the fewest number of people could also be the candidate who would win. (this is good because they dissatisfy the fewest voters) edit: so this means ranked choice, but not in a way described in the video

[@srbtlevse16]

I think there should be more direct democracy, especially when it comes to controversial topics or those that could affect the nation as a whole. I think things like Gun Regulation, Drug Regulation, Abortions, Big Tech regulstion, etc. should be decisions made by the public not by some corrupt politicians. For drug regulations for example the people should be given several options like "Legalize all drugs", "Legalize most drugs", "Illegalize everything" etc. and if one of these doesn't reach 50% vote the top two go for it in a runoff and whichever gets the most votes wins.

[@pedroguttemberg7113]

In Brazil we have a two turn pluraty vote, in the first election there are many candidates and the top 2 go to the second election. Here we don't have anything resembling a two party system

[@jackreacher.]

Plurality voting allows Mr. Beat to avoid swimming with the fishes.

[@rupurrtpurrcy7502]

Qsn: Why the Way We Vote is Terrible? US Females: Frankly, this was a tricky qsn before the election of Trump. US Males: It's actually no longer been tricky since the election of Warren Gamaliel Harding.

[@dennisschlager8947]

We in Europe always wonder why your voting system is so terrible 😅😂

[@spencergraham-thille9896]

Why does this have upvotes?

[@dennisschlager8947]

@@spencergraham-thille9896 because it's true maybe

[@spencergraham-thille9896]

@@dennisschlager8947 How would you know how good our system is if you don't live here?

[@spencergraham-thille9896]

I think that democracy is a sham, but if you are going to have it, a two-party plurality system is pretty good.

[@fattypopulista8189]

@@spencergraham-thille9896 Because we know how to read.

[@pzdf8v]

This I actually agree with but the status quo won't let happen.

[@marycochran9550]

I have another idea we could do a rank voting by star voting. Voter colors in the stars Are putting the number of stars they want to sign each candidate and they can do it for as many candidates as they want and then the person who has the most stars are the average has more stars Win . And we would do it Frank and approval vote.

[@KnuxMaster368]

Plurality system is why people attack the electoral college. 48/50 states + DC use Plurality. Ranked choice pledging is better Proportional allocation of the states electors *would be* better, except it would have to go to the House if a candidate doesn't hit over 50% of the vote (though if two electoral votes are separately allocated for plurality winner, it would prevent some of it) Single Transferrable vote by state for the US House. Gets rid of redistricting, and allows for a more representative vote in each state. Instant runoff for Senate.

[@AquariumThoughts]

Electoral college does suck, but I can't support getting rid of it if we keep the current plurality voting. The other methods of voting will also get rid of the whole stupid primary election which essentially is just voters voting for what party candidate gets to run in the end. We are wasting public resources to hold an election for what is essentially a private party. Unless your talking about California's primary elections for everything but president. I wish they went with something other than Plurality voting. We could get rid of needing to run a second election period.

[@BoraCM]

I like the concept of score voting, but it doesn't work well. Everyone would just give their favourite candidate 10 points. I like it because someone who is in different to the parties will have less say than someone who is more interested, though, if one person wants someone to win, they will rank them at 10, whereas if someone wants that someone to win so badly, they think the country will fall to pieces if they are not elected, they will rank that candidate 10 points out of 10. I absolutely hate approval voting, although I really like the alternative vote. It is my favourite, and gives smaller parties a chance. Normally, you could either vote fr the party you want to win, and give it more representation, or vote for a larger party to prevent another from getting into power. The problem with the first circumstance is that there's a chance that you may have a government that you don't want elected, and the problem with the second is that your favourite party doesn't have more representation. With the alternative vote, this doesn't happen. Vote splitting is avoided, so more candidates from each party can be fielded without being a detriment to their own party, so there is more choice, tactical voting will be unnecessary, and smaller, newer parties are given more chances to win more seats and have more influence at the national level. No longer will parties win 12% of the vote and win no seats in parliament. The UK actually had a referendum was suggested by the Liberal Democrats, one of the smaller parties, in 2011. But, of course, the 2 larger parties both campaigned hard to make sure we didn't switch. Amazingly, we voted no to AV. The opportunity might never come again, as the only reason the Lib Dems were able to do this was because there was a hung parliament, and it was included in a coalition government with the Conservatives. The last time they had formed a government was in 1959, when a faction of them, the Liberal Nationals, was included in the government. They merged with the Conservatives almost a decade later, in 1968, while in opposition. The last time they has actually been the major partner in a government that they themselves formed was in the December of 1910, when the liberals won just one more seat than the conservatives. Guess what? The Liberal Party was formed in 1959, with a mixture of Whigs, radicals, and Peelites, along with a few Conservatives.

[@vane5736]

2:24 did he just predict the election?

[@TheOtherWhiteNerd]

I agree. The issue is that this is something decided at the State level, not at the Federal Level. Or rather, passing such a change would require a two-thirds in both houses and ratification by three-fourths of the States. That just seems so unlikely, especially when States and the Parties will argue that doing so is stripping them of their Rights.

[@rosswebster7877]

A vote against Tim Bob is a vote against America!

[@Fraublitz]

Would make more sense for people to support the 3rd party candidate of their choice and not to chicken out as the race becomes close. Ross Perot got 20% of the vote we were on the right track we couldn't sway the public or the media to give accounts.

[@andrewsutherland133]

Honestly, I think the alternatives are too complicated to do in a country as big as the United States without something to average it out like the electoral college. It would probably take weeks to find the results, and not only do I think people won't wait, but that could take time away from transitions. I personally think the biggest problem with the voting in the United States is you vote for the party ticket rather than candidates. Ideally I think all candidates regardless of political party should run in an open primary similar to California, and unlike California's top 2 run offs, any candidate with at least 10% of the primary vote will advance, that way we make way for candidates that the people actually want while nor making it a decision between the lesser of the two evils

[@robbiem4624]

I agree with plurality voting I have been voting 3rd part since 2012. I live in Cali so my vote does not matter so i can vote for who i want.

[@str82thepoint100]

The only time I have been truly terrified during the election was 2016. I can rest easy now until the next election. LOL!

[@EmmetTheFox]

Hey Mr. Beat, how do you vote? And I don't mean who or what policies you vote for, I mean what are the reasons behind who you decide to vote for, and also do you vote third party?

[@Davey-TheDJ]

Since we the people vote for a president it should be done by the number of votes not the Electoral College we the people need to get rid of the Electoral College plain and simple and if anyone does not like what I said hear well guess what build a bridge and get over it and there's no toll to get over your Bridge!!

[@jeffreyscarbroughboardgame2822]

Link to your buddy KZbin channel who is running for president? But really it be easier to run for a local office if you are not known

[@jkholtgreve]

I think 2020 itself put the lie to the apathy argument. When voting was actually made easy, over 70% of people voted, the vast majority for one of two most decidedly terrible candidates.

[@klaatubaradanikto984]

We have preferential voting here in Australia and yes, it does help elect the middle ground candidates along with third party or independent candidates. We also have compulsory attendance at elections which has again driven things to the centre and resulted in a system that makes it as easy as possible for people to vote, eg voting is on a Saturday, and more polling places along with easy pre poll and postal voting results in short waiting times at polling places

[@MicahScottPnD]

In your assessment, is it working fairly well?

[@tylere.8436]

Here's an alternative: How about adapt approval voting in the primaries based on issues e.g. Trump wins in the Republican primaries for economics but not the presidency itself so he can accept a cabinet position in economics on a possible Republican administration and then debate with the Democrat and third party equivalents to help voters in the general what each administration would look like.

[@str.77]

Mone of the presented alternatives are better than plurality voting. In those systems that allow voters to cast differing numbers of votes, voters casting more votes are favoured. In the "instant run-off" version explained in the video, the method favours some votes over others, as the 2nd choice of those voting for the least successful candidate are counted first. The result shouldn't depend on the method.

[@Quintinohthree]

In no system is anyone allowed to give out differing numbers of votes. Everyone gives out the same number of votes, the system only deals with how those votes are distributed as candidates are elected or eliminated. Yes, in IRV those whose first vote goes to the candidate receiving the least first votes are the first whose second votes are considered, however if we consider how they would have voted had the first eliminated candidate not been on the ballot, all those voters votes would have moved upnone spot and thus we are still considering their first choice given the remaining candidates. They have not been favored, they are in the exact same situation. The results depend on the method, that is inescapable. What is inescapable irrespective of method cannot be an argument for or against a method. What we should ask is not whether the result depends on the method, but how.

[@str.77]

@@Quintinohthree As it was explained in the video (and I have taken part in votes where it was like this) you would have a certain maximum of votes that you can distribute but you don't have to use them all up. Or you can rank candidates according to your preference. Say, there are 8 candidates and you can rank them 1 to 8 but you can also only rank 1 to 4 because you dislike the other four. In the votes I took there was a pseudo-candidate called "RON", which stood for re-open nominations, which you could pick as your bottom choice.

[@Quintinohthree]

@@str.77 I think you're mistaken. You're only given one vote, in the form of one ballot, and asked to indicate how that vote should be transferred if and when the need arises, surely? Your ballot never gets duplicated and put in multiple piles simultaneously, right, it's only ever in one pile. At least not in IRV.

[@clownhunter5010]

I'm with you brother.

[@revolutionaryprepper4076]

Third party candidates don't always get shut out. Ross Perot ran in 1992. He could've easily won as a third party candidate, but he pulled out of the race and then later got back in. He would've made a great president, but he just wanted to make the point that "It's the economy stupid." In which he was right! RIP Ross Perot! Instant runoff voting sounds good, but you might wind up with somebody you don't want in office to begin with.

[@bertaroo]

Ross Perot would have more power without the plurality system

[@HorrorMetalDnD]

Instant runoff voting is basically a single-seat variant of single transferable vote, which has a lengthy history of popularity and success (both internationally as well as in the US), unlike the other methods mentioned.

[@robertagallant3819]

I strongly agree. Right, plurality voting in the United States does such! Plurality voting should now disappear.

[@benb2794]

Mr. Beat’s just mad that his vote for Gary Johnson in 2016 didn’t affect the election

[@iammrbeat]

Yeah that's it. You sure figured me out.

[@Cornelius___]

Where in the world are these alternative voting methods employed?

[@quentenwalker1385]

A real indication of how provincial the most powerful nation in the world is. Isuggest you look at France (with delayed runoff voting), Australia (with instant run-off voting (we call it preferential voting) and New Zealand with mixed member-proportional voting, with Germany having something similar, or pure proportional voting which Australia uses for its Senate

[@jomolololo4398]

@@quentenwalker1385 mate dictators use run off , its oerfect to just cut off votes , and France has protest for a reason still and Aus is being sold out to china by politicans on both sides , get fucking real pussy

[@Cornelius___]

@@quentenwalker1385 was just asking a question cockhead

[@quentenwalker1385]

@@Cornelius___ Thank you.

[@quentenwalker1385]

@@jomolololo4398 And USA is better, or Uk is better? I think not. The question is what is the most democratic, ie reflects the will of the electorate better. First-past-the-post (UK, Canada, USA) is the least democratic. Look at other methods in other nations.

[@Eduard000F]

That's why I didn't vote back in 2016 because the choices were awful...

[@brucejensen2693]

Dude, I love your videos. While I don't fully agree with all of your opinions - only about 94.54% - I do REALLY appreciate the thought and research you put into your presentations. I especially love this video, bang on. Yay!

[@onemanenclave]

I think everyone should have up to 4 or 5 votes. You can vote for multiple candidates and assign to each one a priority number. The candidate who has priority 1 is given 1 whole point for that vote, the next candidate (number 2) gets half a point, candidate number 3 gets a quarter of a point, and so on.

[@BloodRider1914]

This is why simply abolishing the electoral college is bad. It just nationalizes the spoiler effect.

[@iammrbeat]

There would have to be a system to replace it. I agree that just a popular vote is problematic.

[@quentenwalker1385]

@@iammrbeat Of course a popular vote is problematic - the major parties have less influence to change the result to what they want. how dare the people want their vote to be the one that matters. No wonder USA democracy is a joke to the rest of the Western world.

[@quentenwalker1385]

And it is why USA has such a sick joke as president - lost the popular vote, won the electoral college vote - yes, by all means, don't let popular votes count.

[@jeffslote9671]

@@quentenwalker1385 Why should only LA and NYC have a say in presidential elections? Removing the ec will eliminate any say most of America has in elections

[@Al-xk3iz]

It's okay to have an opinion. Even a bad one. Most voting systems are worse than FPTP. Approval is one of the few others that does not suck, but isn't perfect or way superior either.

[@iammrbeat]

There are no perfect voting systems. I'm curious as to why you love FPTP so much, however. What are your best arguments for FPTP?

[@robertpolityka8464]

Having ranking voting has its advantages and disadvantages. 1-I can see the argument of having the candidate whose point of view is closest to the majority of the Electorate, from the ideological point of view, should represent a constituency. At the same time, there is also the possibility of where the character of a candidate in question, who was in second place on the first round of voting could end up with a majority of the vote on the second round..despite any character flaws. For example, an ultra-conserative Republican who has various character flaws (such as being caught taking bribes) might have come in second place on the first round, might end up in first place on the second round. 2-I'd also be more likely to question the legitimacy of a candidate, depending on how rounds of voting and the length of the voting..such as a Presidential Election using NPV and 100 or more candidates...

[@wolfpackjew]

Approve voting is the best way to decide among a group of friends where to eat or what movie to see. Ranked choice voting is the best way to determine elections for political office.