this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2023
64 points (89.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43833 readers
868 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm trying to figure out the pros and cons of the STAR Voting method versus the pros and cons of the STV method. Can anyone help fill me in?
Do you have 3 hours?
This live stream explains it all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-dzK3YIAf8
The TLDR, or TLDW here;
The difference between RCV (also called IRV) and STAR is the difference between an Ordinal system and a Cardinal system.
An Ordinal system is a ranked system. Chose one or the other, but never both. A vote for A means you cannot also support B. This lead to some math shit that actually gives preferential treatment to two party systems.
RCV claims to support third parties and solve the spoiler effect. The truth is the opposite in every way. It eliminates fringe parties that would spoil elections, but also falls prey to spoiler effects when you have very similar candidates. It's actually a mess.
STAR on the other hand is a Cardinal voting system. A vote for A is a vote for A and a Vote for B has no impact on A. A good example is saying that I give Chocolate Milkshakes 5 out of 5 stars and New Coke 1 out of 5. But here's the main difference to an Ordinal system, I can also give a Banana Smoothies 5 out of 5 stars. Because I'm rating them as individuals, not in comparison to each other.
STAR is literally a 5-star review of the candidates, and the two with the highest average (or just highest scores) are then put head to head. Each ballot is then looked at, if Chocolate Milkshakes are rated higher on any given ballot than Banana Smoothies, Milkshakes get the vote of that person. If they're the same, a vote of No Preference is logged, and the No Preference votes are also made public at the end.
No no, I was asking about the differences between Single Transferable Vote and STAR - not RCV/IRV.
RCV is the single winner version of STV.
Every single fault of RCV is present in STV, but because it's a multi-winner format, the complexity and lack of transparency in the counting process are far worse.
If you really want proportional or multi-winner elections, then a better option is this.
It's based off of Score the same way that STAR is, but tweaked to be multi-winner.
Ah, okay - thanks for the explanation.
I do like the idea of multi-winner elections because of the increased chance of having a representative for your specific issues taken to a national assembly. In the UK things are split up into boroughs, which seems illogical for cities and aside from being grandfathered in likely only persists because it enables gerrymandering.