วีดีโอ

I personally prefer a version of instant runoff where you can stop ranking. If you think circle is great, and square is fine, but triangle and pentagon both suck, you can fill out your ballet like this: 1. Circle 2. Square 3. 4.

at 8:44 the pattern can be visualized, as the bottom rows are rows in the side of the pyramid, which follow the law used to create pascal's triangle.

Ranked pairs is the fairest system.

someone said:"Democracy is the dictatorship of the majority where the voice of the minority are ignored" the gerrymanding is a good exemple where we use localize majority to delete the voice of localize minority

Here’s how i think votes should be counted: Start with cities, and get rid of congressional districts. Tally up the votes for the city, then whoever has the most votes wins that city. Then go to counties. Tally up each city win and see who has the most won cities. This candidate wins the county Then go to the states. Tally up each county win and see who has the most won counties. This candidate wins the state Whoever wins the most states wins, and Washington DC should only count, since it isn’t part of any state and is our capital city, as a tie-breaker. Just my take, tho. This eliminates the bias that likeminded people will congregate together and maybe even form conglomerations of loose-agreement

This appears to not accoint for the primary process in U.S. political system (which removes the second choices people would want/have). Like all your variations of Pizzas would be removed in the primary process and only one pizza would go to the general election.

Score vote 0 to 5 Vs Score vote -3 to +3 Note these are actually different things. People who have no preference will always vote 0 most of the time bit if we shift the score to the left we allow peole to vote afainst something with -3 while previously it w8uld have been just 0. I would love to see video about this.

I co-founded a non-profit in the US that educates people on various voting reforms, and I loved your video! My only criticism would be that the portrayal of Instant Runoff Voting is a bit rosy. IRV is definitely better than FPP, but I tend to describe it as “the worst of all the better options”. A lot of the advocates/organizations that promote IRV oversell the benefits and ignore the flaws. Be In reality, RCV still manifests the Spoiler effect, it’s just detectable under different conditions. It still tends towards 2 party system; it’s debatably slower, but overall it doesn’t change the mathematical conditions that drive towards a two party system. And every system is vulnerable to tactical voting, IRV included, it just looks different in practice. And then there’s monotonicity...... 😬 If you’re interested, I’d be happy to jump on a Zoom call or something and BS about pros/cons of IRV and possibly introduce you to other reforms like STAR, Approval, Borda, etc.

solution: shopping malls often have food courts with multiple different restaurants in the same place

Isn't the whole point that the combination of FPTP and strategic voting inevitably leads to a two-party system, which necessarily means there can't be a spoiler effect like in a multi-party system?

This is why collective leadership is needed.

Not-so fun fact about runoff voting, it can unintuitively cause a candidate to win an election if they receive less votes in an earlier round. Take an example where the options are pizza, tacos, and burgers. All pizza and burger voters have tacos as their second choice, and taco voters are equally split on second choice versus third choice. If the initial votes are 31% pizza, 32% tacos, and 37% burgers, then tacos will win in a landslide. Pizza gets eliminated first, pushing tacos up to 63% in the second round. If they instead were 33% pizza, 32% tacos, and 35% burgers, then burgers will win instead despite having less and despite tacos (the previous winner) having the same amount of votes. This happens because tacos get eliminated first instead, pushing burgers up to 51% in the second round.

Great video :D. I'm glad someone is finally talking about the fact that triangles are corrupt.

This is great, thank you.

What we need to do is give each person a rating system which allows them to rate each candidate and thus creates an individualized utility function for the preferences of each voter.

funnily enough a few days after you releasing this video Veritasium released a video (indeed longer than 15 minutes) proving there can't be a perfect voting system

Counting instant runoff is a nightmare though. Source: I'm a vote tallyer

Wrong, Hexagon is the bestagon

sounds more like advice for a girl rather than for getting a girl considering you have so many options

Why do you seem to state gerrymandering is only when there is a manipulation by the majority? Why wouldn't it be both? There are plenty of cases where the minority does it to increase their representation.

"This [the spoiler effect] is probably single-handedly the biggest issue with elections in the US and the UK" No way. For the UK sure fair enough. Their last election just had like 14% of the vote convert to 1% of seats (and that 14% was likely massively lower than it would be due to strategic voting). It's also the case for Canada where the NDP (generally more left) cannibalizes some of the Liberal vote (center left). But the US? I don't think practically any significant vote bleeding happens from independents. US got a bunch of other problems like electoral college and winner takes all making it come down to just a few swing states each election (like what a seriously weird system). The winner takes all seats (at state level) makes it so its incredibly unlikely any third party could ever rise as well in the US, but that's not the same as third parties currently cannibalizing votes. First past the post systems are stupid in general for multi party systems. UK and Canada are both examples of how massively these systems fail to reflect the preferences of voters. UK really recently and Canada especially in the past 80s and 90s. Systems which count additional preferences of voters allow new parties to have a better chance at gaining momentum, allow one issue voters to have some influence and in general require politicians to actually cater to the issues voters care about lest they lose votes to parties that will. It's a downright shame to see FPTP in some of the countries which would benefit the most from a different system. Off topic, but how did you get a Brilliant sponsor with 7k subs? And you have a surprisingly fleshed out team you're crediting for such a small youtube channel. As someone who's been curious about content creation I'm curious how your journey went for that.

STV is a great alternative. It does mean redrawing boundaries a bit or something but the way it works is by allowing everyone's vote to be used. So basically everyone has at least somewhat chosen the parties in charge. Its hard to gerrymander it since well you can't really force an outcome when the people end up choosing 5 or 6 candidates to represent them so its better to win people over to your side. You also can decide who gets in. Like in Northern Ireland where this is done for the local assembly you can chose to vote for let's say 2 DUP members you trust, 1 UUP member & then something like Alliance & the greens for the bottom for example. Now there is usually 6 DUP candidates for each area but you are likely not to agree with every member of a party. By doing this you allow a more representative & liked system as you have more control on not just the parties in charge but the people in charge. I however must mention that it doesn't work well in Northern Ireland due to the fact that our political parties are a bunch of children who like to abuse powersharing to get their way leaving us with no government but that's a problem with the power sharing government system & the leadership of Sinn Fein & the DUP & not the STV system. On the topic of Northern Ireland I can point out another problem or benefit with FPTP which is a kinda voting decision where you decide to go against you own political beliefs & vote for a party you disagree with because you want to ensure somebody stays in that parties leadership as you believe its better than letting the more well the DUP has a bunch of people in it who are old & very power abusive so I know some people in east belfast let Alliance lose despite agree with them more to ensure Gavin Robinson remains in the parties leadership & try & keep a government. This can exist better in STV but I'd feel like it can't work in AV because you can't chose a party you agree with more because you don't want this person in particular to lose. The main benefit of STV, AV, FPTP that more proportional systems have is that you have local representation. Most people would prefer to have a MP that they can rely on to help them when they need it than have a party in power that they agree with because well the party can start ruining the country like the Tories did despite many agreeing with them which is why they lost so many votes but its like that they kept most of the seats they had due to people who may not have agreed with the party liking the MP in the area. Proportional systems usually end up giving the parties the power to decide their elected members meaning you end up with only senior leadership even if they have become disliked by the majority of the voters because they hold all the power & you lose younger & more liked members because the party doesn't care about them. MMP is a half way point as it has this with FPTP I'd say MMP is better than AV because the 1st thing I mentioned in this tangent wouldn't be a problem if you could chose the party you like but know that the man you voted for is likely to win without the 2nd choice skewing the result.

Let's imagine that you had friends. 😢

fun fact: fair elections arent possible

So you arguing for Rank Choice voting?

Is this why the incumbent seems to be more likely to win since they aren’t running a primary while the challenger is?

0:00 not to be a hater, but mathematicians have a real knack for coming up with the least fun "games" imaginable

Thx for the advice, time to put this to action

I thought the title said “Magically rigging and election” 🤣🤣🤣

i dispise political democracy, i love the idea of freedom but i realize that everyone will vote for there own self intrest. selfishness has no place in politics designed for the betterment of society. but a lot of people do not want a democracy, they want a Totalitarian civilization where they get to rule over everyone else, to have everything they want, to kill or torture whoever they want, to attain some massive reward for following a warped idea built off there lack of understanding, they want power to keep getting whatever it is they want. would i want that power? i may have megalomaniac tendencys but my morals are anything but warped, nobody should have the power to rule over any civilian of earth

0:09 Jaiden?

IRV is better than First Past the Post, but it still has some major flaws. In fact, it actually still has all the flaws on the chart at 15:20, just to a lesser extent than FPP. It also has the problem that you can actually harm a candidate by voting for them, which even FPP doesn't have, though the problems with FPP are worse overall.

I find it ironic that mathematicians can't even agree on the meaning of "consensus".

Different voting systems often seem less exploitable because people have had a lot less time and spend a lot less effort trying to figure out how to exploit them

0:37 i know it's an example but each of them could buy their prefered food then join up in a park with it An other solution is proportional, 3/5 want tacos so we eat tacos 60% of times next meet up, 20% burger 20% times pizza, rotation is important in politics too

Jokes on you in iran you don't vote for the leader but a puppet president chosen before hand (your vote does nothing)

I lost it when you said just imagine if you had "friends". I couldnt imagine them...

13:57 It is also known as Ranked Choice Voting. My favorite voting system is Star Voting. You give each candidate a rating from 0 stars to 5 stars. It fixes the issue with RCV mentioned earlier in the video where a person may dislike 2 different candidates equally.

Seems we both watched the same video about voting

*pentachoron

Is that Jaiden and James?

TH-cam putting a disclaimer here is ridiculously obnoxious

Democratic voting is not inherently fair. Ever hear of “tyranny of the majority”? “Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.”

I have the feeling this guy would vote pizza 🤔

politics and math are so fun

Can't you just keep more along instead of leaving them and that should have a much higher succes rate

Problem is that you dont now how big your group of people you'll date is right. I saw a comment mentioning how this could be used for job applications and ig that would fix this problem as your n is just the total number of applications.

TH-cam is up to spreading propaganda. That shouldn't surprise anyone as they are in partnership with the federal government.

The multiple flavors of pizza are clones, not true spoilers. Clones could be candidates elevated and paid for by the taco opposition to cause a spoiler-like effect against the pizza party. It's a strategy of divide and conquer. Using a different system like a Cardinal voting system instead of a FPTP system takes care of the clone problem as each voter can rate all clone candidates the same and still place their less-preferred candidates (taco) lower. Instant runoff also suffers from the Spoiler Effect and Tactical Voting as IRV uses the same ballot as the Condorcet counting method. Both Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem (Nobel Prize winning) and the Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem shows any ranked voting system (IRV, Condorcet, Borda, etc.) are susceptible to the spoiler effect and tactical voting, respectively. Duverger’s law stating a voting method tends toward two parties also applies to Instant Runoff Voting. 15:20 IRV should look like the FPTP chart, and the FPTP chart should have only the top two green arrows as FPTP can select a candidate via Plurality and not always Majority. The problem with IRV’s majority criteria is, depending on the number of candidates, the 6-7th place, 9-10th place, or 17-18th place candidates may impact who wins the election based on a tiny number of lower ranked candidates. These small margins may be enough to lift one candidate to majority status over the second place candidate regarding rankings no one cares about. Researchers have shown these low level rankings are much more likely to end in ties too causing more confusion and frustration.

I feel like the natural conclusion of "Instant Runoff" is for any even remotely popular centrist party to become de-facto kings of the country. Just get enough votes to survive one or two rounds as a centrist and you've probably won.