Feedback on http://www.equal.vote/srvvsirv

[wolftune]

• In the IRV wording on the ballot, "goes to your next choice (if any)" should be more explicitly clear: "goes to your next choice (if you marked one and they have not yet been eliminated)". That would itself clear up the entire issue of understanding IRV.

[nardo]

It's up to date as of 30 minutes ago :-)

…

On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 9:17 PM Aaron Wolf ***@***.***> wrote: I was thinking to do edits and submit PR, but the latest version doesn't seem to be pushed up to GitHub! - I still want the extraneous wording in the opening about "O.G." and "new kid" changed. I don't like that form of it, and I think it gives the impression of IRV being more widespread than it actually is. - In the IRV wording on the ballot, "goes to your next choice (if any)" should be more explicitly clear: "goes to your next choice (if you marked one and they have not yet been eliminated)". That would itself clear up the entire issue of understanding IRV. - "SRV is a form…" should start a new paragraph - The whole "In IRV, the final contestants…" paragraph could be much better. It's not true that it's always fewest 1st-choice votes eliminated since after the first round, the candidates have a mix of 1st and 2nd choice votes in their column. - I suggest this: "IRV determines the final contestants through a series of elimination rounds. In the first round, IRV counts only the top choice from each ballot. If no candidate has a majority, then the candidate with the fewest top votes gets eliminated. The ballots for that candidate are moved to their 2nd choice (if any is marked). In each successive round, the candidate with the fewest ballots in their column gets eliminated. Ballots from that column then move to their next choice among the candidates still remaining (if any). Once some candidate has a majority of the still-active ballots, they win the election." Arg, I'm stopping here. Posting this as an issue is frustrating. I'd rather just edit the file directly. Let me know when the GitHub repo is updated with the latest files. — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#19>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAInmwnPEawx7SRgqPyoOIgAf-N6U7KVks5reSHTgaJpZM4MFxb3> .

[wolftune]

I'm not going to get into editing the ballot image so left my comment for that. Will submit PR otherwise

[endolith]

It would probably be better if the SRV vs IRV image were "filled in"

like this one:

Showing the two ballots side by side for the same voter would show how IRV doesn't allow ties or degree of preference. (Though if you kept names Jill vs Bernie etc you'd have to pick real life candidates, which would be bad for appearing partisan. Maybe an animation that cycles through several ballots? Meh.)

[wolftune]

In my experience, giving real candidate names leads people to ignore everything else and just focus on whether they imagine the system being good or bad for the candidates they prefer. That's a point for fictional names.

[endolith]

Yeah. I think showing Hillary, Bernie, and Trump on the same ballot helps people realize that it eliminates the need for primaries, though.

[nardo]

We leave the ballots empty that use real candidate names, and A-F for ballots that are filled in on the site. I do think it'd be good to have a "ballot gallery" - where we can show what lots of different voters might do..., and we can label them all: the Bernie Bro, the #imwithher voter, the Greenie, the #maga fan, etc.