I had the pleasure of sitting down with Robert Wiblin of 80,000 Hours to talk about The Center for Election Science and voting methods. Like many 80,000 Hours interviews—which is a great podcast to listen to in general—this interview was long and detailed.
With exciting projects like our push for approval voting in Fargo and general capacity building, we’ve reached the point where we have to bring on more staff. We’re hiring!
Pushing smarter voting methods has the potential to change lives in the world at a fundamental level. There are few opportunities for this level of impact.
We’ve seen a different picture of French elections under alternative voting methods before. Fortunately, we’ll all get another look as an alternative voting method analysis is again underway.
If a candidate gets elected that is both not preferred by a majority, then you’ve got a problem. A voting method that regularly makes that bad decision is not a voting method you want.
When the alternative is to continue using the worst voting method—plurality voting—there is little risk experimenting. Clearly, Dr. Arrow wanted us to have better.
Host Kevin Willett is joined by Aaron Hamlin of The Center for Election Science. They promote better collective decisions in settings ranging from civic organizations to government bodies.
We can’t expect honest voters. It’s proven that there’s always some incentive to be tactical. But what we can do is see how certain voting methods encourage voters to be honest.
Our polling results revealed that, with the approval voting method, third-party candidates would have received a LOT more support than what we saw in the actual election—which used the plurality voting method.
A presidential election with approval voting would be completely unlike what you’ve seen. Being able to choose as many candidates as you want permits you to always vote your favorite. No matter what.