I might’ve missed this, as I didn’t read some of the sections of this post quite as closely as I could have, but here’s a question which, I think, is critical:
Has there been any research aimed at determining which voting method is easiest to understand (for people who aren’t specialists in the field[1], or, in other words, for the general public)? (And, by extension: how hard is each method to understand? How do they compare, in this regard?)
Comprehensibility by the general public seems to me to be a sine qua non of any voting method we’re to consider for adoption into the political process.
In particular, one could ask: Do people take advantage of the options in the voting systems that they do have? To what extent do Australians make use of ranked choice? I don’t know. It appears to me that most British Labour Party members,† faced with a slate of 5 candidates for PM, restrict their consideration to viable candidates and don’t take advantage of their opportunity to express their preferences, even though the party goes out of its way to nominate diverse candidates.
† Labour Party members are a small group, more like activists than American primary voters, who are, in turn, more involved than general election voters. The Party is trying to move in the American direction, but hasn’t moved far. The Tories don’t have primaries at all.
There has definitely been attention to this question. All of the proposals I support in practice (Approval, 3-2-1, or STAR for single-winner; and PLACE for multi-winner) are among the simpler to vote and to explain.
But most of the research is in the form of proprietary focus groups or polling, so unfortunately there’s no good source I can point you to. I’m working to change that.
I’m assuming that “we” is the USA; and “the system” is FPTP (that is, you’re ignoring the electoral college and the system of primaries and redistricting).
Approval is just as easy to understand, and in fact easier to avoid ballot spoilage.
3-2-1 and STAR are both a bit more complicated, but not much; either one can still be distilled down to 9 words.
PLACE is significantly more complicated for vote-counting, but to cast a ballot, it’s still just about as simple as FPTP. In fact, if you take into account the fact that you are more free to ignore strategic concerns, it’s arguably simpler.
I might’ve missed this, as I didn’t read some of the sections of this post quite as closely as I could have, but here’s a question which, I think, is critical:
Has there been any research aimed at determining which voting method is easiest to understand (for people who aren’t specialists in the field[1], or, in other words, for the general public)? (And, by extension: how hard is each method to understand? How do they compare, in this regard?)
Comprehensibility by the general public seems to me to be a sine qua non of any voting method we’re to consider for adoption into the political process.
[1] Or, as we might say, “voting theory nerds”.
In particular, one could ask: Do people take advantage of the options in the voting systems that they do have? To what extent do Australians make use of ranked choice? I don’t know. It appears to me that most British Labour Party members,† faced with a slate of 5 candidates for PM, restrict their consideration to viable candidates and don’t take advantage of their opportunity to express their preferences, even though the party goes out of its way to nominate diverse candidates.
† Labour Party members are a small group, more like activists than American primary voters, who are, in turn, more involved than general election voters. The Party is trying to move in the American direction, but hasn’t moved far. The Tories don’t have primaries at all.
There has definitely been attention to this question. All of the proposals I support in practice (Approval, 3-2-1, or STAR for single-winner; and PLACE for multi-winner) are among the simpler to vote and to explain.
But most of the research is in the form of proprietary focus groups or polling, so unfortunately there’s no good source I can point you to. I’m working to change that.
How does the comprehensibility of these methods compare with that of the system we have now?
I’m assuming that “we” is the USA; and “the system” is FPTP (that is, you’re ignoring the electoral college and the system of primaries and redistricting).
Approval is just as easy to understand, and in fact easier to avoid ballot spoilage.
3-2-1 and STAR are both a bit more complicated, but not much; either one can still be distilled down to 9 words.
PLACE is significantly more complicated for vote-counting, but to cast a ballot, it’s still just about as simple as FPTP. In fact, if you take into account the fact that you are more free to ignore strategic concerns, it’s arguably simpler.