Scan barcode
Reviews
Gaming the Vote: Why Elections Aren't Fair (and What We Can Do About It) by William Poundstone
ptothelo's review against another edition
2.0
i really enjoyed it, but i think i need to read it more often to remember what things like "Borda Count" actually entails.
fdterritory's review against another edition
5.0
Most books that attempt to propose new ways of carrying out elections are nothing more than sour grapes: "Since *my* guy didn't win the last election, the system is obviously flawed and should be overhauled." Therefore, most of these sort of books are a waste of time. This one, however, is simply brilliant. Instead of approaching the subject through party results, Poundstone instead takes a historical walk through many different voting schemes in terms of the mathematical theory behind them. Don't be scared by the word "mathematical", by the way...Poundstone not only steers clear of intense mathematics but also provides a simple glossary to help you remember something you may have forgotten from earlier pages. While I think I can determine his political leanings from a couple of different allusions, he makes such a good argument and has such an engaging style of writing that it doesn't matter. There were several times when I noticed a flaw in the argumentation and Poundstone responds to the particular question on the VERY NEXT page. Any author that can read the mind of an informed reader is doing a good job indeed. :) Anyone who's interested in the process of voting should read this one because it's the best of its kind.
readingthestars's review against another edition
4.0
Had to read this for my thesis, but very interesting and informative!
ckporier's review against another edition
2.0
Interesting facts, but not very well written. Quick read, though.
nharkins's review
5.0
Giving this 5 stars, because I think the subject is VERY important, especially now, and I'm not (yet) aware of another book about the topic that's even half-remotely consumable by the public at large, despite this one being a bit dense at times.
The first third of this book is about history of plurality voting (i.e. what the US has today ––electoral shenanigans aside) and its biggest flaw: spoiler candidates. My eyes started to glaze over a bit here because it's the exact same story over and over again (both sides have been bitten, although lately the right seems to do a better job of reigning it in than the left, which is depressing). Power through this part, or skip it. The Takeaway: our current voting method has a 11% rate of failure, which would be unacceptably high in any other government or commercial endeavor.
I was slightly annoyed at the author handwaving/choosing not to explain Ice Skating's "Great Flip-Flop" controversies, but as he recommends, searching the internet will turn up the admittedly complicated explanation: https://rangevoting.org/Skating1998.html
Before reading this book, I had heard of Instant Runoff Voting, and was convinced that the United States should reform in favor of that method. I now think Range Voting is the best, but IRV has the best chance of actually happening (although still remote, because corrupt politics knows how to cheat at the current game thus will do anything to defend it/lie to discredit any alternative), and Better Should Not Be The Enemy of Best. It's extremely disappointing that so many vain academics can't get their heads out of their asses thus are as vehemently divided as the general populace right now, and this is why voting reform hasn't happened yet. :(
PS - Hurricane Katrina was as horrible as it was because an corrupt official with KNOWN gambling debts was elected because of vote splitting bullshit, and unsurprisingly diverted resources from the army corps of engineers (overseeing the levees) in favor of riverboat gambling. Yay America. At least he's in jail now, after the fact.
PSS - Nader is a fucking egotistical asshole.
The first third of this book is about history of plurality voting (i.e. what the US has today ––electoral shenanigans aside) and its biggest flaw: spoiler candidates. My eyes started to glaze over a bit here because it's the exact same story over and over again (both sides have been bitten, although lately the right seems to do a better job of reigning it in than the left, which is depressing). Power through this part, or skip it. The Takeaway: our current voting method has a 11% rate of failure, which would be unacceptably high in any other government or commercial endeavor.
I was slightly annoyed at the author handwaving/choosing not to explain Ice Skating's "Great Flip-Flop" controversies, but as he recommends, searching the internet will turn up the admittedly complicated explanation: https://rangevoting.org/Skating1998.html
Before reading this book, I had heard of Instant Runoff Voting, and was convinced that the United States should reform in favor of that method. I now think Range Voting is the best, but IRV has the best chance of actually happening (although still remote, because corrupt politics knows how to cheat at the current game thus will do anything to defend it/lie to discredit any alternative), and Better Should Not Be The Enemy of Best. It's extremely disappointing that so many vain academics can't get their heads out of their asses thus are as vehemently divided as the general populace right now, and this is why voting reform hasn't happened yet. :(
PS - Hurricane Katrina was as horrible as it was because an corrupt official with KNOWN gambling debts was elected because of vote splitting bullshit, and unsurprisingly diverted resources from the army corps of engineers (overseeing the levees) in favor of riverboat gambling. Yay America. At least he's in jail now, after the fact.
PSS - Nader is a fucking egotistical asshole.
xaviershay's review
4.0
3 stars + 1 for new useful information on a topic I am unread on.
Summary: Ranked voting systems are fundamentally broken (proven with math), plurality vote (American system) is *really* broken: major parties regularly fund extremist parties *on the other side* to try and splinter off votes from their main opponent. As a result, democrats regularly win deeply conservative states (and vice versa). Clearly an insane state of affairs. Range voting (i.e. give each candidate 1-5 rating) is the least broken, but politically difficult to enact because it disrupts the status quo of political consultants. Instant run-off voting is still a broken ranked system (what we use in Australia), but probably the most likely reform candidate in the US today because it would still preserve the two-party system - doesn't change the norm too much but allleviates some of the more egrerious vote splitting cases.
Summary: Ranked voting systems are fundamentally broken (proven with math), plurality vote (American system) is *really* broken: major parties regularly fund extremist parties *on the other side* to try and splinter off votes from their main opponent. As a result, democrats regularly win deeply conservative states (and vice versa). Clearly an insane state of affairs. Range voting (i.e. give each candidate 1-5 rating) is the least broken, but politically difficult to enact because it disrupts the status quo of political consultants. Instant run-off voting is still a broken ranked system (what we use in Australia), but probably the most likely reform candidate in the US today because it would still preserve the two-party system - doesn't change the norm too much but allleviates some of the more egrerious vote splitting cases.
rbiddy's review
3.0
I liked the historical tidbits on which elections (mostly US presidential) have been manipulated, as well as the exposure to various voting systems. I felt like the information could have been presented in a New Yorker article though, rather than a full-length book.
More...