Eric Maskin and Partha Dasgupta are smart guys, and its hard to believe they are totally ignorant of what happens in the Southern Hemisphere. So how can they justify writing a piece promoting a system of rank-order voting as superior to the existing American (plurality) and French (top-two runoff) systems, without mentioning that Australia has had this system (in a range of variants) for many decades.1
A minor side point is that, in addition to having the world’s most complicated voting systems, Australia also has compulsory voting.2 Typically more than 95 per cent of votes are formal, that is, list all candidates in order of preference, with no missing numbers or repetitions. In Dennis Mueller’s generally excellent book on Public Choice, he discusses the single transferable vote and suggests that, while attractive in theory, it’s too complicated to work in practice. Either Australians are a lot smarter than everybody else, or public choice theorists aren’t as smart as they think they are.
1 To be precise, Maskin and Dasgupta advocate the Borda weighted vote, whereas Australia has the single transferable vote (called preferential voting in Australia), but nothing in their argument distingushes the two.
2 More precisely, compulsory registration and attendance at the polling station - there’s nothing to stop you casting a blank ballot.
Well called John. They’re as dumb as dogshit. OK, we’re only 20 million folks, but surely they must know that our PM is known throughout the contemporary world as The Man of Steel, and that we’re fully paid up members of the Coalition of the Willing. What if Dolly Downer hears of this? There’ll be hell to pay. Inexcusable on every count.
I hate to break this to you, but the relationship between the rest of the world and Australia is pretty similar to the relationship between Australia and New Zealand.
Has anyone noticed a certain desperation to be noticed in the voices of Australians ever since the mighty England flayed them on the rugby field?
Overuse of the word “noticed” - sorry.
What? Being a member of the Coalition counts for nothing? I’m aghast! Wait, there’s more. Have I told you about our deputy sherrif job …
Oh? We forgot about that world cup thing as soon as we won the Davis Cup the next weekend.
As I recall, casting a blank or otherwise ‘spoiled’ ballot is illegal. Utterly unenforceable, of course— but you’ve then got a criminal act which others can be, and sometimes are, punished for advocating.
So how does this compulsory vote thing work, anyway? Is there an election mutawa that hunts down non-voters and drags them to the polls?
Jacob, the law is a little unclear on whether it is illegal to cast an informal vote, but it doesn’t appear to be: sect. 245 - Compulsory Voting.
What is illegal is to distribute untrue information about voting, which is what Albert Langer was (quite improperly) jailed for back in 1996.
Andrew, no one drags you to the polls, you just get a $20 fine if you don’t turn up and can’t come up with a good excuse why you didn’t.
And what about Ireland? Since the foundation of the state we’ve been using the STV.
I am probably not as well versed in public choice theory as I should be. Could someone point out why STV would be preferable to actually using the Condorcet method? The ballots will look the same; is there some criteria against which Condorcet pairwise counting fails miserably? (I don’t think cyclic ambiguities count, since STV has to deal with them somehow too.)
They’re smart guys, but they’re also high-powered theorists, so I’m surprised their paper even mentions that one system is used in America and another in France. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, just you shouldn’t expect Eric Maskin (whom I respect greatly — he was an economics prof of mine about five years ago) to be the one to tie his recommendations to the real world and know what goes on in what country.
Keith is right. Not only do we share Ireland’s voting system (not sure who came first on this one), but we copied Ireland’s version of the VAT/GST, with fresh food exempted.
And of course the only international football competition that matters is Australia v Ireland (mixture of Australian and Gaelic rules).
Yeah, don’t forget Ireland. And of course we are notoriously stupid, so if the public choice people think STV is too complicated, and Irish people do not, well …
jack lecou: thanks for the comment on Condorcet methods. I’ve been wondering that myself.
For more information on voting systems, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method
IMO, STV is functionally the equivalent of the caucus system, without the hassle of showing up at an inconvenient time. But it takes away the only part of the caucus system that makes it fun, the art of persuading voters for losing candidates to shift their preferences to your alternative.
The other aspect of alternative voting systems that nobody talks about is how to winnow down candidate lists to a number (5 or 6, say?) that is manageable for the voter. In Washington State, the whole open primary system is in question because individual parties refuse to honor the result of an open primary election, based on the right of free association.
If the object is to preserve the best-choice centrist compromise candidate into the final election, some solution must be found that is palatable to both mainstream and alternative political parties.
This site convinced me that STV is a poor method.
Jack, to be implementable, Condorcet must be modified to give a winner in every case, and the comparison depends on which version you want to use.
The main divergence between Condorcet and STV arises because to win in STV you have to avoid early elimination, which normally means that you need to have a significant number of first-preference votes. In a system with two large voting blocs, this tends to work against centrist candidates. Iin this respect STV is closer to plurality voting in its properties than is Condorcet.
The merits or otherwise of this are debatable. Arguably, when STV is used in a constituency system, it will come closer to proportional representation than will Condorcet, which will generally over-represent centrists.
Daniel, if the relationship between the rest of the world and Oz was the same as between Oz and NZ, Dasgupta and Maskin would have claimed the credit for the whole idea of the STV.
It’s a well-known rule of Australian journalism that any creditable accomplishment by a New Zealander becomes attributable to Australia on the completion of one day’s Australian residence by said Kiwi.
BTW, didn’t we do well at the Oscars?
“surely they must know that our PM is known throughout the contemporary world as The Man of Steel”
Y’all elected Stalin Prime Minister?
Donald Saari has a convincing (to me) argument for the Borda count, including an argument that even a unique Condercet winner should not necessarily be elected.
He uses the 3-candidate example that Condercet himself exhibited:
30 votes A>B>C
10 votes B>C>A
10 votes C>A>B
1 vote C>B>A
29 votes B>A>C
1 vote A>C>B
A is the unique Condercet winner, while B wins the Borda count. Now consider this subset of ballots:
10 votes A>B>C
10 votes B>C>A
10 votes C>A>B
1 vote C>B>A
1 vote B>A>C
1 vote A>C>B
These ballots are completely symmetrical with respect to the three candidates and so clearly define a three-way tie: in a very natural sense the ballots in this subset “cancel out” each other, and what you are left with is
20 votes A>B>C
28 votes B>A>C
So B should win, as the Borda count suggests. Saari proves some theorems that say, roughly, that the Borda count is the only system that always respects such natural cancellations among ballots defining ties.
A big problem with Borda is that the addition of a fourth candidate, D, ranked last by all voters, will change the relative value of higher preference votes.
I retract the comment immediately above. An extra candidate of the type described will just add one to the Borda value of all votes for the others.
But if D is ranked dead last by all voters, then the points awarded to A, B, and C under Borda will all go up by the same amount, namely the total number of voters. So the winner remains the same.
On the other hand, an additional candidate D can change the winner without winning itself. For example, if all the A>B>C voters all changed to A>D>B>C while everyone else puts D last, A will become the Borda winner instead of B. So Borda doesn’t satisfy the Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives (IIA).
Saari proves that if the notion of IIA is modified to take into account the number of other candidates ranked between a given pair of candidates, rather than just the binary question of which one is preferred to the other, then Borda satisfies this modified IIA, together with all of Arrow’s other conditions.
It’s a well-known rule of Australian journalism that any creditable accomplishment by a New Zealander becomes attributable to Australia on the completion of one day’s Australian residence by said Kiwi.
Residence? They don’t even have to be conceived there!
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,8842284%255E601,00.html
“Australia may well lay claim to an acting Oscar, too, as Renee Zellweger, who won best supporting actress for her role in Cold Mountain, revealed afterward that her parents met in Sydney. Her father, Emil, was born in Switzerland but was sent to Australia by his family during World War II, and became a surf lifesaver in Cronulla. He met Zellweger’s mother, a Norwegian nurse, Kjellfrid, in Sydney and later followed her to Texas when she found a job there.”
lol, Errol! You couldn’t make it up if you tried, could you?
How about “Although Charlize Theron has never actually been to this country, her childhood liking for Captain Kangaroo qualifies her as yet another Australian winner”.
20 bucks!!??? A few months ago i got a fine for $150 in the mail for an election i didn’t even think i’d missed. But still, compulsory voting rules. When else would you get to see all the halls of our country? Be they church, school, scout, norwegian club or boy’s brigade?
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review