Imagine an election that pits Candidates A, B and C against one another. There are 10,000 voters. Candidate A is the clear favorite of 9,999 of them. But Candidate A is nonetheless defeated. How is it possible for Candidate B to beat the other two?
William Poundstone's Gaming the Vote arrives amid unusually high reader interest in equitable voting. And Poundstone is a clear, entertaining explicator of election science. He easily bridges the gaps between theoretical and popular thinking, between passionate political debate and cool mathematical certainty. These dichotomies can be drastic. If politics is a realm in which emotions run high, he notes, mathematics is "one of the few fields where it doesn't matter what other people think."
Social choice theory is a field of scholarship that analyzes voting patterns in the abstract. The resulting election strategies have become so Machiavellian, Poundstone says, that political consultants are as interested in backhandedly hurting some candidates as in helping others.
"Were these new campaign techniques a genetically engineered tomato," he writes of such tactics, which are colorfully illustrated here, "they might command more attention than they have. They have gone largely unnoticed by the public, the media, and nearly everyone except the campaign strategists and their clients." Gaming the Vote provides a lively remedy for that situation.
Poundstone's book asks one overriding question: "Is it possible to devise a fair way of voting, one immune to vote splitting?" The answer requires some historical context: a brief history of elections gone terribly awry.
Poundstone's chronicle of
spoilers concentrates on presidential elections that delivered the opposite outcome from the one most voters seemed to prefer. This goes from explaining how abolitionist vote-splitting in 1844 put the slave-owner James Polk in the White House to showing how a consumer advocate, Ralph Nader, helped to elect "the favored candidate of corporate America," President George W. Bush, in 2000.
Since at least five out of 45 presidential elections have gone to the second-most-popular candidate because of spoilers, Poundstone calculates a failure rate of more than 11 percent for our voting system. "Were the plurality vote a car or an airliner," he writes about this traditional method, "it would be recognized for what it is - a defective consumer product, unsafe at any speed."
As political consultants become as scientific as they are ruthless, Poundstone maintains, "we are witnessing a bipartisan mainstreaming of the spoiler effect as a tool for political strategizing." Regard these manipulators as hackers corrupting a software system, and you arrive at a clear conclusion: The software needs to be changed. Gaming the Vote offers lively explanations of mathematically feasible alternatives.
That idea that voting methods can be gamed has been so warmly embraced that Donald Saari, a prominent theorist, says: "For a price, I will come to your organization just prior to your next important election. You tell me who you want to win. I will talk with the voters to determine their preferences over the candidates. Then I will design a 'democratic voting method' which involves all candidates. In the election, the specified candidate will win." Saari was joking, but some politicians understood this to be a serious offer.
In Gaming the Vote, Poundstone enumerates some of the major theoretical systems that could reshape voting. Two of the most influential methods are traced back to rival 18th-century French intellectuals who devised conflicting systems and also displayed a prescient scholarly hostility.
The Marquis de Condorcet, an important theorist in the field, once said of Jean-Charles de Borda, who advocated a weighted ballot on which voters ranked candidates in descending order: "Some of his papers display talent, although nothing follows from them and nobody has ever spoken of them or ever will." This same collegiality is found among rival voting theorists even today.
Among the points explained by Gaming the Vote is that the mad-tea-party absurdities of voting systems actually do owe something to Lewis Carroll. (Under his real name, the Reverend Charles Dodgson, he analyzed election paradoxes and advocated treating voting as a game of skill.) Poundstone cites leading scholars, among them Steven Brams and the Nobel laureate Kenneth Arrow, both of whom give their endorsement to this valuable book. He describes alternative voting systems known as Approval, Range, Cumulative, Condorcet and Instant-Runoff voting. Only rarely and humorously must he render this confusing.
"The thing is, it's impossible to explain Condorcet voting any further without talking about cycles and 'beat-paths' and 'cloneproof Schwartz sequential dropping,'" he says. "This is where the android's mask falls off and it's all wires and microchips inside. Non-PhD's run screaming for the exits. So far, Condorcet voting has tended to appeal to the kind of people who can write Javascript code for it."
Poundstone's preference is for a system called range voting, advanced by Warren Smith, a mathematician. Range voting, in which voters rate the candidates numerically, is akin to the weighted, collective tallies used for Internet product ratings, the Web site Hot or Not (which has elicited more votes than all American presidential contests combined) and restaurant guides shaped by consumers.
Range voting outstrips yes-or-no plurality voting in revealing voters' nuanced opinions. It has been admired even by Ralph Nader - and that, Poundstone writes with typical dry panache, "is something like a spirochete endorsing penicillin." Nader's spoiler effect is exactly what Gaming the Vote means to assail.
Speaking of spoilers, the way Candidate A could lose with 9,999 votes would be on an approval ballot that allowed each voter to list more than one choice. If A alienated even one voter, while B, as a mediocrity, appealed to all of them, then B would be elected. If approval ballots had been used in 1992, and Ross Perot had appeared on every single ballot, and at least one voter chose not to vote for Bill Clinton or George Bush, President Perot would be in the history books. In the opinion of Gaming the Vote, this is reason enough to explain why voting systems warrant close scrutiny and major change.
April 28 to May 4 During the Japanese colonial era, a city’s “first” high school typically served Japanese students, while Taiwanese attended the “second” high school. Only in Taichung was this reversed. That’s because when Taichung First High School opened its doors on May 1, 1915 to serve Taiwanese students who were previously barred from secondary education, it was the only high school in town. Former principal Hideo Azukisawa threatened to quit when the government in 1922 attempted to transfer the “first” designation to a new local high school for Japanese students, leading to this unusual situation. Prior to the Taichung First
The Ministry of Education last month proposed a nationwide ban on mobile devices in schools, aiming to curb concerns over student phone addiction. Under the revised regulation, which will take effect in August, teachers and schools will be required to collect mobile devices — including phones, laptops and wearables devices — for safekeeping during school hours, unless they are being used for educational purposes. For Chang Fong-ching (張鳳琴), the ban will have a positive impact. “It’s a good move,” says the professor in the department of
On April 17, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) launched a bold campaign to revive and revitalize the KMT base by calling for an impromptu rally at the Taipei prosecutor’s offices to protest recent arrests of KMT recall campaigners over allegations of forgery and fraud involving signatures of dead voters. The protest had no time to apply for permits and was illegal, but that played into the sense of opposition grievance at alleged weaponization of the judiciary by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) to “annihilate” the opposition parties. Blamed for faltering recall campaigns and faced with a KMT chair
Article 2 of the Additional Articles of the Constitution of the Republic of China (中華民國憲法增修條文) stipulates that upon a vote of no confidence in the premier, the president can dissolve the legislature within 10 days. If the legislature is dissolved, a new legislative election must be held within 60 days, and the legislators’ terms will then be reckoned from that election. Two weeks ago Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) proposed that the legislature hold a vote of no confidence in the premier and dare the president to dissolve the legislature. The legislature is currently controlled
RSS