40
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2026
40 points (80.3% liked)
Rant
536 readers
321 users here now
A place where you can rant to your heart's content.
Rules :
- Follow all of Lemmy code of conduct.
- Be respectful to others, even if they're the subject of your rant. Realize that you can be angry at someone without denigrating them.
- Keep it on Topic. Memes about ranting are allowed for now, but will be banned if they start to become more prevalent than actual rants.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
And all we'd have to do is let people check multiple names. Same ballots - one less rule - basically matches Condorcet results.
I'm truthfully curious how you think that might work! I can absolutely agree that an approval style method is much better than FPTP. My biggest concern is tactics via bullet voting (thus returning to a sort of pseudo-FPTP), which gives a preferential/ranked ballot the edge in my view.
As for approval approximating a Condorcet winner, I suppose my intuition isn't making it immediately obvious to me how it would accomplish that. With a multi-checkmark ballot you wouldn't be able to do the head-to-head pairwise comparisons to determine the true Condorcet winner.
Always happy to chat electoral systems! :D
Strategery is self-defeating when every idiot's doing their own bullshit. With enough people the honest answers just kinda happen. So long as nobody's out there doing Ranked Choice bullshit - putting Adolf Beezlebub ahead of their second-favorite guy because they pretend that means their vote will count twice - the aggregate reflects everybody's top N candidates.
The worst possible failure mode for Approval Voting is what we're already doing.
Yeah, multi choice is not good, but it's better than standard fptp. The advantages are that it's simple and there's no spoiler effect. Ranked choice or some proportional system (like the MMP that we have in nz) are much better.