undefined | Better HN

0 pointszestyping3y ago0 comments

You have to consider factors beyond just the decision algorithm — elections must be inclusive, fair, and accurate as well. RCV makes auditing a lot harder due to centralization, the complexity means there is more room for software problems and process problems, and the spoiled ballot rate increases, especially among people who are less privileged. When you look at the whole picture, RCV is probably a net negative.

Approval doesn't have these problems; it's a clear win.

0 comments

1 comments · 1 top-level

godelski3y ago

> RCV makes auditing a lot harder due to centralization,

I'd argue that the algorithm is far more complex. It is `while no winner: pop(min(candidates)); reallocate(min(candidates))`. This while loop is quite a problem. Cardinal systems (except STAR) are `argmax(sum(candidates))`, which is actually identical to Plurality. The difference is that Plurality requires a one-hot vector. This algorithm is trivially parallelizable too. STAR doesn't require a while loop but is more complex because it does have 2 phases (which RCV is almost always going to be more than 2 phases given that while loop).

The trivializes of cardinal systems tallying algorithm makes statistical audits also trivial. I just can't imagine the mess we'd be in if what happened in Arizona happened with an ordinal method like RCV. It would be much easier to create a narrative of fraud.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse