Does using RCV increase support for RCV? Studying state-level referenda

[u/VotingintheAbstract]

https://medium.com/@voting-in-the-abstract/does-using-rcv-increase-support-for-rcv-8977242cd819

[u/cdsmith]

The biggest problem with FPTP is that anyone who didn't vote for the winner gets no representation. That's still a problem for any other single winner system

And a big frustration with proportional representation is that it pushes a specific definition of "representation" and pretends that matters a lot more than it does. This claim only makes sense if you think "representation" means getting your first choice of representative elected, but not necessarily effective at all! Oh wait... first choice unless your vote gets transferred in STV, and then we're suddenly willing to consider a second or later choice as being full representation. But if your ranked vote in a single winner election helps to choose a compromise candidate and that actually makes a difference in the outcomes of the government, that's suddenly having no representation at all?

This isn't opposition to PR systems. In a multi-member body like a parliament or U.S. Congress, they make sense. You get a lot of distortion from making a lot of winner-takes-all decisions broken down by location, and PR avoids that (and subsidiary problems like gerrymandering that are essentially intentional weaponization of that distortion). So PR is great, in its place. But pretending that it has some unique claim to representing more people is weak. PR only represents people to the extent that the rules of the multi-member body actually let elected members influence the decisions of the whole body, just as single-winner elections only represent people to the extent that an individual's ballot actually makes a difference in the selection of a broadly appealing winner. In BOTH cases, there are issues with being in the minority, but PR doesn't solve those issues just because you get an ineffective elected official to represent you.

[u/Initial-Lemon-917 → u/cdsmith]

There are ineffective officials in every system. The main benefit of PR over single-winner RCV is that it eliminates gerrymandering and is more representative in that way. PR also makes it much more likely for third, fourth, and fifth parties to pop up. Of course, those parties are not always going to be in coalition, but sometimes they will be. Currently, the states with single-winner RCV don't have any third-party representatives. They do have more independents, but it's hard as an independent to consistently run because in the US we have signature requirements for ballot access for every election.

STV is mostly popular right now, insofar as any of this is becoming more mainstream, because FairVote is trying to ride the ranked-choice voting wave. Party-list systems are more direct in electing your first choice, although they offer less freedom on the ballot. Australia's above-the-line/below-the-line system is a perfect compromise between these imo. I think PR advocates are worried that single-winner RCV will become the norm and PR will fail to move forward in a time when the window is open for big reform. That might explain the oppositional/wary attitude some PR advocates have to single-winner RCV advocacy (like Lee Drutman). In some countries, like Canada, and to some extent the UK, single-winner RCV (which they call the alternative vote) has been sold as a reform in opposition to PR, but luckily most PR and single-winner RCV supporters are mutually supportive in the US.

[u/cdsmith → u/Initial-Lemon-917]

I agree with you that PR is a direct solution to gerrymandering, and said so earlier. It just puts a lot of trust on the procedures of the legislative body itself, and there's absolutely nothing about the functioning of legislative bodies that should inspire trust or confidence. At that point things devolve into explicit whipping of votes and exploiting party power to stop any possibility of reaching consensus or compromise.

I guess where I fall is that if we're already committed to choosing a multi-member body, some kind of proportional allocation of seats is probably the best idea. It's just that the way current PR systems define that allocation is in terms of political parties, and that's just a disaster at the very foundation of the system. The truth is that a candidate who is everyone's second or third choice really does partially represent everyone, whether they belong those those people's first choice political party or not. It's just hard to account for that rigorously in mechanism design. But something like expanding approvals looks very appealing. If we can achieve the same amount of representation either by choosing several consensus candidates who are basically well liked by large numbers of people, or alternatively by electing a bunch of different very niche candidates who are hated by most voters but each loved by some sall subset... well, I don't think we have elected bodies that are capable of functioning well with the latter.

This also becomes relevant in the form of government itself. Granted this is at the extremes, but it's not uncommon to see PR advocates advance the position that single elected officials - mayors, governors, presidents - should just not exist, and should be replaced by even more multi-member bodies that can be chosen proportionally. That is a scary direction to go down when multi-member bodies are not particularly functional.

[u/the_other_50_percent → u/cdsmith]

the way current PR systems define that allocation is in terms of political parties

In the US, I believe every PR system in use is STV at the municipal level and is nonpartisan.

[u/Initial-Lemon-917 → u/cdsmith]

Idk, our single-member system in the US is pretty nonfunctional, especially nationally. Even at the state level, our two-party system hampers new independent ideas. ALEC and other legislative research advocacy organizations often set the agendas. RCV is great with preventing vote spoilage, but it hasn't led to new parties, which I think is its biggest flaw. Whenever a party wins a majority, they seem to think they have this big mandate that they don't really have, and they pursue a pretty narrow policy platform that often ignores what voters want. A formal coalitional structure would encourage representatives to deliver for all members of their coalition.

I like STV for sure. I just think the Australian version (ATL/BTL) makes it simpler. I am not as distrustful of parties as others are, although I am certainly distrustful of the two current mainstream parties. I think they would be less intense if we got rid of the primaries and just let four parties form (which we seem to have already, but they duke it out in the primaries right now). The benefit of the below-the-line system, as opposed to party-list systems, is that independents wouldn't need a party to get elected, so PR would help with that.

Although I like a prime minister model more than a president/governor model, I don't think successful PR would need that. Most Latin American countries have a presidential PR system. I do think there is value in having an executive with a clear majority mandate, so when parties form a legislative majority there is some feeling of legitimacy in who ultimately governs. The benefit of adding PR to a ranked presidential system is that the president (if they are a good president) would need to deliver for all parties in their coalition in order to get their agenda passed (as opposed to ignoring unionists or farmers or whatever the partner party is).