Voting systems are hard. Let's go shopping!

[isomorphisms]

Should I take comfort in the fact that it's not only the National Post, to say nothing of 61% of British Columbia voters, who think that all them newfangled voting systems are hard?

To wit:

Hollywood has become embroiled in a row ahead of the Oscars over a new 'transferable vote' system which critics claim could mean the award for best picture

Comments

[oxeador]

I often say that people are stupid. This is not an exaggeration, not just an expression, and not my frustration taking over. I do calmly, rationally, and literally believe that people are stupid. I am amazed that humanity has made it this far.

[clipdude]

I don't think it's about intelligence. It's about people's willingness to think.

Many people believe it's not worth expending effort to understand anything. These other voting systems are more complicated than a plurality-wins system, because a plurality-wins system is about the most simple voting system imaginable (save for picking a winner out of a hat). I think most people's first exposure to voting is in grade school, when their first-grade class decides what flavor of ice cream to serve at their class party, or something like that, using a plurality system. But when somebody compares the Oscar voting system to "trying to divine the secrets of cold fusion", what the mean is that they don't want to think any harder than a six-year-old can if they can help it.

[isomorphisms]

Agreed.

Last May, when people said that they were voting against BCSTV because it was too complicated, I proposed an even simpler system than FPTP: the "I choose your representative for you" system. It's very simple - no one (other than me) needs to even submit, let alone count, ballots - and it's a lot cheaper than what we have now.

Surprisingly, I had no takers.

[oxeador]

...they don't want to think any harder than a six-year-old can...

I call that stupidity.

[oxeador]

Also, this is not BC-STV! The three minute cartoon that you link to explains a much more complicated system than this one (yet still not complicated in my opinion). In this case, there is only one candidate to choose. The Oscars system is completely explained by the paragraph:

If no movie wins 51 per cent in the first round the one with the least support is eliminated and its votes are allocated to second choices. The process continues until one emerges as the clear winner.

Really, which part of that was confusing?

[isomorphisms]

Yeah, I know it's not BC-STV...or, rather, it's kind of trivial case.

No, wait, a movie needs 51%, as opposed to 10%+1? So what's all this talk about "onoes, you only need 11% to win"? Where do they get 11%? Because that's all that you need to guarantee not being eliminated in the first round? JUST LIKE IN FPTP?

As to what's complicated, well, it involves multiple steps!

[telso]

Maybe it's just that the English speaking peoples of the world are dumber than everyone else. I mean, FPTP is mainly only used in Britain and its former colonies, and nearly every other country uses something other than FPTP, so maybe we just don't add up. So next time someone tells you it's too complicated, just tell them it's because they're genetically and intellectually inferior than the rest of the planet.