Which voting system is the best? - Alex Gendler
video description
Date: 2020-08-22
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 10
education
Great video! I notice you only went over ordinal systems, i. e. ones that use a ranked ballot. Arrow's Impossibility Theorem applies to such systems, but it doesn't apply to cardinal systems, which use a scoring ballot (like rating a movie on a 1-5 scale. Dr Kenneth Arrow, who won a Nobel Prize in Economics for his theorem, says in a 2012 Center For Election Science podcast that a scoring system is probably best. So I think it's a rather large oversight that in your video titled Which voting system is the best? that you didn't mention any scoring systems, like Range Voting, Approval Voting, STAR Voting, etc.
reply
Great video! I notice you only went over ordinal systems, i. e. ones that use a ranked ballot. Arrow's Impossibility Theorem applies to such systems, but it doesn't apply to cardinal systems, which use a scoring ballot (like rating a movie on a 1-5 scale. Dr Kenneth Arrow, who won a Nobel Prize in Economics for his theorem, says in a 2012 Center For Election Science podcast that a scoring system is probably best. So I think it's a rather large oversight that in your video titled Which voting system is the best? that you didn't mention any scoring systems, like Range Voting, Approval Voting, STAR Voting, etc.
reply
Hassan
To be honest I prefer instant runoff voting and of course the first is the least two choices for the second because there is no way you can invent a system that going to make everybody comes of it a winner. But what you can do is invent a system that gives the candidate more than one chance with the people and that is instant runoff voting. for example there are 6 candidate and one of them has never been chosen as the first but he has been chosen as the second and the third by all the voters. This candidate will be the winner and with or without the voters knowledge they actually agreed on a middle ground.
reply
To be honest I prefer instant runoff voting and of course the first is the least two choices for the second because there is no way you can invent a system that going to make everybody comes of it a winner. But what you can do is invent a system that gives the candidate more than one chance with the people and that is instant runoff voting. for example there are 6 candidate and one of them has never been chosen as the first but he has been chosen as the second and the third by all the voters. This candidate will be the winner and with or without the voters knowledge they actually agreed on a middle ground.
reply
Edward
Theoretically, if all bases are voting for the spaceport to be nearest to them, wouldn't the fairest way of determining the best location be to calculate the mathematical centre of the area between all four bases, so essentially the average point between which all bases are placed and then pulling that theoretical point closer towards each base (by a constant and quantifiable distance) based on the percentage of voters from each location? Finally, you would either build the spaceport on that point or the closest proposed point to that.
reply
Theoretically, if all bases are voting for the spaceport to be nearest to them, wouldn't the fairest way of determining the best location be to calculate the mathematical centre of the area between all four bases, so essentially the average point between which all bases are placed and then pulling that theoretical point closer towards each base (by a constant and quantifiable distance) based on the percentage of voters from each location? Finally, you would either build the spaceport on that point or the closest proposed point to that.
reply
DTwo
Just take the rankings from 1: 22 and assign points for each vote. For example: 5 points for someone's first choice, 3 for their second, 1 for their third, and 0 for last. Doing this results in North winning, South finishing 2nd, West finishing 3rd, and East finishing last. Almost all reasonable point values (eg. 3 for 1st, 2 for 2nd, 1 for 3rd, 0 for 4th) end in the same result. I was only able to get a different winner once I made 1st place votes worth 4x the point total of 2nd place votes, which would obviously be absurd.
reply
Just take the rankings from 1: 22 and assign points for each vote. For example: 5 points for someone's first choice, 3 for their second, 1 for their third, and 0 for last. Doing this results in North winning, South finishing 2nd, West finishing 3rd, and East finishing last. Almost all reasonable point values (eg. 3 for 1st, 2 for 2nd, 1 for 3rd, 0 for 4th) end in the same result. I was only able to get a different winner once I made 1st place votes worth 4x the point total of 2nd place votes, which would obviously be absurd.
reply
Inkyminkyzizwoz
You're right about concepts of fairness contradicting each other. People often complain about 'safe' seats in general elections, yet some also complain about MPs that are elected on a minority of the vote. Well, you can't have it both ways! Do you want there to be more than one candidate with a reasonable chance of winning or do you want the one that does win to have a clear majority?
reply
You're right about concepts of fairness contradicting each other. People often complain about 'safe' seats in general elections, yet some also complain about MPs that are elected on a minority of the vote. Well, you can't have it both ways! Do you want there to be more than one candidate with a reasonable chance of winning or do you want the one that does win to have a clear majority?
reply
Jacob
For the base question, it might be better to have it longitudinally so that 50% of people are on the West of it and 50% on the East and laterally so that 50% of the population is North or South of the station. This way the outliers aren't screwed over, but it's as efficient as possible.
reply
For the base question, it might be better to have it longitudinally so that 50% of people are on the West of it and 50% on the East and laterally so that 50% of the population is North or South of the station. This way the outliers aren't screwed over, but it's as efficient as possible.
reply
flavio
Why wasn't a proportional system taken into account? A lot of countries use a proportional system and it's the only system where each voter has the same weight, and where one must have more than 50% or reach that percentage through coalitions in order to win
reply
Why wasn't a proportional system taken into account? A lot of countries use a proportional system and it's the only system where each voter has the same weight, and where one must have more than 50% or reach that percentage through coalitions in order to win
reply
Not
The best vote is to not vote. Just build it at the most rational and logical place. Since humans are always flawed, we need to build a super AI to make the votes for us. The computer will simply calculate and see which outcome would be the best.
reply
The best vote is to not vote. Just build it at the most rational and logical place. Since humans are always flawed, we need to build a super AI to make the votes for us. The computer will simply calculate and see which outcome would be the best.
reply
Poopoo
These bases were set up by a country or commonwealth/union so wouldnt it make sense to have the members of the UN vote themselves and the one with the most votes would win assuming there are no ties.
reply
These bases were set up by a country or commonwealth/union so wouldnt it make sense to have the members of the UN vote themselves and the one with the most votes would win assuming there are no ties.
reply
rtyzxc
This tactical voting is a huge problem in traditional democratic voting, because it's based on completely arbitrary flocking together that can sway with the wind, not based on presented values.
reply
This tactical voting is a huge problem in traditional democratic voting, because it's based on completely arbitrary flocking together that can sway with the wind, not based on presented values.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
