-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
Expand file tree
/
Copy pathanalysis.html
More file actions
343 lines (337 loc) · 25 KB
/
Copy pathanalysis.html
File metadata and controls
343 lines (337 loc) · 25 KB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="css/main.css">
<script src="js/script.js"></script>
<meta charset="utf-8" />
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"/>
<title>Analysis</title>
<link rel="preconnect" href="https://fonts.gstatic.com">
<link rel="icon" type="image/png" href="images/favicon.png"/>
<link rel="apple-touch-icon" href="images/icon.png"/>
<meta name="description" content="Be no longer plagued by inefficiency, wasted votes, and long formulas."/>
<meta name="keywords" content="Friday, Dinner, Voting, Candidates"/>
<meta name="theme-color" content="#64495A"/>
<meta property="og:image" content="https://pitabread8.github.io/Friday-Dinner/images/icon.png"/>
<meta property="og:title" content="Analysis - Friday Dinner"/>
<meta property="og:description" content="Be no longer plagued by inefficiency, wasted votes, and long formulas."/>
<meta property="og:url" content="https://pitabread8.github.io/Friday-Dinner"/>
<meta property="og:type" content="website"/>
</head>
<body id="analysis">
<script>createNav(1);</script>
<h1>What are the voting systems we are studying?</h1>
<main>
<div id="content">
<div id="intro" class="info-c">
<p class="info-p">
We analyzed four voting systems and their benefits in day-to-day use.
You can test them yourself in our <a href="sim.html">voting simulator</a>.
Definitions of common voting terms and more information about the systems can be found in the <a href="resources.html">resources</a> page.
</p>
<div id="overviews">
<div>
<h3>Plurality</h3>
<p class="info-p">
This method is the best for any situation involving only two candidates, or when the voting process needs to be quick.
</p>
</div>
<div>
<h3>Ranked</h3>
<p class="info-p">
Ranked voting is best in situations when the voter’s personal preferences need to be recorded, such as when people need to be sorted into groups.
</p>
</div>
<div>
<h3>Approval</h3>
<p class="info-p">
This system is best for situations where people do not have enough information to choose or rank an option, or if the options could result in the exclusion
of some group members.
</p>
</div>
<div>
<h3>Score</h3>
<p class="info-p">
Score voting is perfect in situations where something or someone is being judged/reviewed.
Any situation that requires each candidate to be evaluated individually would also work well.
</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="fptp" class="info-c">
<div class="row">
<h2>Plurality</h2>
<p class="info-p">
Plurality voting, commonly known as First Past the Post, is the most common voting system.
It is used everywhere in the world, in all sorts of situations.
In the United States, people are pushing for Plurality to replace the Electoral College system (The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact).
</p>
</div>
<div class="row">
<h2>How to Count</h2>
<p class="info-p">Voters vote for one candidate each, and the candidate with the most votes wins.</p>
</div>
<table>
<tr>
<th>Pros</th>
<th>Cons</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Requires only one choice</td>
<td>Trends toward two main parties</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Always picks the candidate with the most overall votes</td>
<td>Causes <span id="tooltip" title="A tactic used when voting for someone other than a preferred candidate results in a more preferable outcome, like when two large parties dominate the system and voting for a smaller party will result in a wasted vote.">strategic voting</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Counting is easy and fast</td>
<td>Vulnerable to <span id="tooltip" title="A specific situation of vote splitting, when one candidate "steal's" votes from a politically similar candidate that would have won, allowing a third (minority) candidate to win.">spoiler effect</span></td>
</tr>
</table>
<div class="analysis-s">
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p class="info-p">
This method is the best for any situation involving only two options, or when the voting process needs to be quick.
All other systems eventually use Plurality in two candidate elections.
<br><br>
Something to note is that because this system is susceptible to the spoiler effect, voters may strategically choose not to mark their first choice on the ballot.
Voters may vote for one of the majority candidates rather than the minority candidate they prefer to prevent a majority candidate that they really dislike from winning.
</p>
</div>
<figure class="sim-s">
<figcaption class="info-p">
The winning candidate in Plurality is generally the one nearest to the biggest cluster of voters, even if the cluster makes up a small percentage of all of
the voters. Below, the majority of voters are on the right side, but the largest cluster of voters is near <span style="color: #64495A;">Candidate 2</span>,
which is isolated on the left. The votes on the right side are split evenly by <span style="color: #AD4865;">Candidate 0</span> and
<span style="color: #F2CC8F;">Candidate 1</span>, removing the chance of either of them winning.
</figcaption>
<img src="images/sim/plurality.png">
</figure>
</div>
<div id="ranked" class="info-c">
<div class="row">
<h2>Ranked Voting</h2>
<p class="info-p">
Ranked voting is the most common alternative voting system to FPTP.
<a href="#irv">IRV</a> is gaining popularity in public elections and is currently used in some city council and state primary elections in the U.S.
It was also used to elect legislators in Australia, Canada, Fiji, Hong Kong, and Papua New Guinea.
<a href="#borda">Borda Count</a> is less common but is used in some elections in Slovenia, Iceland, Nauru, and Kiribati.
</p>
</div>
<div class="row">
<h2>How to Count</h2>
<p class="info-p">
Voters rank the candidates from favorite to least favorite by marking which candidate is their first choice, which is their second choice, and so on.
There are a few different voting systems that count ranked ballots, and while each system has its own flaws,
any of them can be chosen to count votes using Ranked voting.
</p>
</div>
<div class="row" id="irv">
<h2>Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)</h2>
<p class="info-p">
Instant Runoff is also called Ranked <em>Choice</em> voting and the Alternative Vote (although there are many more alternative voting systems).
In IRV, first place votes are counted in the same way as FPTP.
Then, the candidate with the least votes is eliminated, and the votes of those who voted for this candidate
as their first choice go to whomever they voted for as second choice. This procedure gets repeated until one candidate has at least 50% of the vote.
</p>
</div>
<table>
<tr>
<th>Pros</th>
<th>Cons</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Reduces vulnerability to <span id="tooltip" title="A specific situation of vote splitting, when one candidate "steal's" votes from a politically similar candidate that would have won, allowing a third (minority) candidate to win.">spoiler effect</span></td>
<td>Does not pass <span id="tooltip" title="In a system that passes this criterion, increasing a vote for a candidate should not worsen their chance of winning and decreasing a vote should not improve their chance of winning.">monotonicity criterion</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Removes need for second rounds of voting like primaries and runoffs</td>
<td>Complicated and nontransparent counting method because voters’ second choices can become more varied among more candidates</td>
</tr>
</table>
<div class="row" id="borda">
<h2>Borda Count</h2>
<p class="info-p">
With Borda, the position of each candidate on each ballot gets added to the candidate’s total.
For example, if a candidate was the first choice, third choice, and fourth choice of three different voters, the candidate’s total would be eight.
The candidate with the smallest total is the winner.
</p>
</div>
<table>
<tr>
<th>Pros</th>
<th>Cons</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Simple to calculate because it only requires addition</td>
<td>May create a <span id="tooltip" title="A reverse situation of the spoiler effect, when one not as well liked candidate moves closer to another minority candidate and "helps" the latter defeat the majority candidate.">reverse spoiler effect</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Removes need for second rounds of voting like primaries and runoffs</td>
<td>Causes <span id="tooltip" title="A tactic used when voting for someone other than a preferred candidate results in a more preferable outcome, like when two large parties dominate the system and voting for a smaller party will result in a wasted vote.">strategic voting</span></td>
</tr>
</table>
<div class="row">
<h2>Condorcet Method</h2>
<p class="info-p">
Condorcet simulates FPTP elections between every pair of candidates based on voters’ choices.
For each pair of candidates, the number of voters who have ranked one over another are counted.
In the example ballot image to the right, candidates <span style="color: #E07A5F;">Red</span>, <span style="color: #F2CC8F;">Yellow</span>, and
<span style="color: #81B29A;">Green</span> are ranked. Between <span style="color: #E07A5F;">Red</span> and <span style="color: #81B29A;">Green</span>,
<span style="color: #E07A5F;">Red</span> has a higher ranking. If a majority of the rest of the ballots in this election also rank
<span style="color: #E07A5F;">Red</span> higher than <span style="color: #81B29A;">Green</span>, <span style="color: #E07A5F;">Red</span> would win
the matchup. The same is applied to the <span style="color: #F2CC8F;">Yellow</span> and <span style="color: #81B29A;">Green</span> pair and the
<span style="color: #E07A5F;">Red</span> and <span style="color: #F2CC8F;">Yellow</span> pair. The candidate who wins the most matchups wins the whole
election.
</p>
</div>
<table>
<tr>
<th>Pros</th>
<th>Cons</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Reduces vulnerability to <span id="tooltip" title="A specific situation of vote splitting, when one candidate "steal's" votes from a politically similar candidate that would have won, allowing a third (minority) candidate to win.">spoiler effect</span></td>
<td>Takes a long time to calculate on paper with lots of candidates because it requires a lot of pair ups</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Passes <span id="tooltip" title="In a system that passes this criterion, there is no situation in which a voter can obtain a preferable outcome by voting insincerely.">favorite betrayal criterion</span></td>
<td>May fail to find a winner by creating a cycle, where no one candidate wins the most matchups.</td>
</tr>
</table>
<div class="analysis-s" style="width: 100%;">
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p class="info-p">
Ranked voting is best in situations when the voter’s personal preferences need to be recorded.
This works in situations where people need to be sorted into groups according to their preferences.
If one group has too many members, some voters can be sorted into other groups based on their second or third choices.
Thus, the voters are evenly split into groups that they want.
<br><br>
Something to note is that because spoiler effect may be present in some of the Ranked voting systems, voters may rank a candidate that is not their first choice as
their first choice. This may be because the voter prefers one majority candidate over another even though neither is their first choice.
</p>
</div>
<figure class="sim-s">
<figcaption class="info-p">
The example below is of Borda Count, so it does not exemplify all Ranked systems, but it does show how all three systems can get around the spoiler effect.
This same situation, in Plurality, awards <span style="color: #64495A;">Candidate 2</span>. However, the majority of voters are closer to <span style="color: #AD4865;">Candidates 0</span> and <span style="color: #F2CC8F;">1</span>. Ranked voting chooses the candidate
closest to more voters, generally the one in the middle of the board/spectrum.
</figcaption>
<img src="images/sim/ranked.png">
</figure>
</div>
<div id="approval" class="info-c">
<div class="row">
<h2>Approval</h2>
<p class="info-p">
Approval voting is not that common in general elections. It is currently being used in Fargo, ND and St. Louis, MO in the United States, as well as small
towns in Western Europe. Approval voting is one of the only systems in which the number of candidates selected is up to the voter.
</p>
</div>
<div class="row">
<h2>How to Count</h2>
<p class="info-p">
Voters mark all the candidates they “approve of” or support.
The candidate with the most approval votes/who is marked by the most people wins the election.
</p>
</div>
<table>
<tr>
<th>Pros</th>
<th>Cons</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Reduces vulnerability to <span id="tooltip" title="A specific situation of vote splitting, when one candidate "steal's" votes from a politically similar candidate that would have won, allowing a third (minority) candidate to win.">spoiler effect</span></td>
<td>Preferences aren't indicated, so it does not satisfy the <span id="tooltip" title="In a system that passes this criterion, expressing support for a second or later choice candidate should not affect the winning chance of the first choice candidate">later-no-harm criterion</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Prevents two-party systems</td>
<td>May not pass <span id="tooltip" title="In a system that passes this criterion, anytime a candidate has over 50% of the vote, they should win. In the context of Approval voting, which is more vague, the "most preferred" candidate will not always win.">majority criterion</span>, which can cause <span id="tooltip" title="A situation in which the voter has the option to select more than one candidate on their ballot but strategically chooses to select only their top choice.">bullet voting</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Counting is easy and fast because it uses the same, familiar ballot of Plurality</td>
<td>May pit candidates of the same party against each other to prevent <span id="tooltip" title="when two candidates of the same party/similar political alignment divide their supporters among themselves, likely preventing either of them from winning and leading to the spoiler Effect.">vote splitting</td>
</tr>
</table>
<div class="analysis-s">
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p class="info-p">
This system is best for situations where people do not have enough information to choose or rank an option,
or if the options could result in the exclusion of some group members.
Approval would be most useful in casual settings rather than public elections, when the decision has a small or temporary impact.
<br><br>
Something to note is that because this system is susceptible to the reverse spoiler effect, voters may not vote for options that they want but are not their
first choice in fear that they are reducing their first choice candidate's chance of winning.
Remember, voting for all of the candidates on the ballot using this system is the same as voting for none because each candidate gets the same amount of points from you.
</p>
</div>
<figure class="sim-s">
<figcaption class="info-p">
Contrary to the previous systems, Approval does not require comparing candidates against each other. The winning candidate will generally be in the center,
but often two candidates with the majority who would normally lose to spoiler effect will tie. This situation is shown above. In Plurality, <span style="color: #64495A;">Candidate 2</span> won; in
Approval, both <span style="color: #AD4865;">Candidate 0</span> and <span style="color: #F2CC8F;">Candidate 1</span> win.
</figcaption>
<img src="images/sim/approval.png">
</figure>
</div>
<div id="score" class="info-c">
<div class="row">
<h2>Score</h2>
<p class="info-p">
Score voting, also known as range voting, is a point-based system. Score voting is not in widespread use in any public elections, although it is quite similar
to the systems judges at the Olympics use and the product rating systems found in e-commerce.
</p>
</div>
<div class="row">
<h2>How to Count</h2>
<p class="info-p">
Voters individually rate each candidate, often on a scale of one to five or one to ten.
The rating of each candidate on each ballot is totalled and the candidate with the highest sum wins.
This system seems similar to the <a href="#borda">Borda Count</a>, but because each candidate is rated irrespective of the others, more than one candidate can
have the same rank/score.
</p>
</div>
<table>
<tr>
<th>Pros</th>
<th>Cons</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>A candidate’s score is not affected by the other candidates they go against</td>
<td>Vulnerable to <span id="tooltip" title="A reverse situation of the spoiler effect, when one not as well liked candidate moves closer to another minority candidate and "helps" the latter defeat the majority candidate.">reverse spoiler effect</span>, leading to <span id="tooltip" title="A tactic used when voting for someone other than a preferred candidate results in a more preferable outcome, like when two large parties dominate the system and voting for a smaller party will result in a wasted vote.">strategic voting</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Fights against <span id="tooltip" title="A situation that can result from a majority rules system, in which the majority uses its power to advance its own interests, while ignoring the interests and/or welfare/rights of the minority/ies. This is not good in a democracy because everyone must be represented, not just the majority.">tyranny of the majority</span></td>
<td>A candidate well-liked by a minority may defeat majority candidates that are not as polarized</td>
</tr>
</table>
<div class="analysis-s">
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p class="info-p">
Score voting is perfect in situations where something or someone is being judged/reviewed. Any situation that requires each candidate to be evaluated individually
would also work well.
<br><br>
Something to note is that because this system is susceptible to the reverse spoiler effect, voters may rank candidates that are not their first choice lower than
they really believe in fear that they are reducing their first choice candidate's chance of winning.
For example, they may give all candidates except their first choice the lowest possible score (usually zero or one) and their first choice the
highest score (usually five or ten) even if they those numbers don't reflect their true feelings.
</p>
</div>
<figure class="sim-s">
<figcaption class="info-p">
Score voting also does not require voters to compare candidates.
However, it does have a similar outcome to Ranked voting, especially Borda count.
In the below example, using Plurality, either <span style="color: #AD4865;">Candidate 0</span> or <span style="color: #F2CC8F;">Candidate 1</span> would win, depending
on where the three open voters voted for. But in Score, <span style="color: #AD4865;">Candidate 0</span> gets a boost from the voters near
<span style="color: #64495A;">Candidate 2</span>, allowing it to win.
</figcaption>
<img src="images/sim/score.png">
</figure>
</div>
</div>
<img id="ballot" src="images/ballots/blank.png"></div>
<div id="menu"><script>createCards();</script></div>
</main>
<footer><script>createFooter();</script></footer>
</body>