You seem to be making a common logical fallacy about tactical voting, explained in the graph here. http://www.electology.org/topic/tactical-voting http://www.el

You seem to be making a common logical fallacy about tactical voting, explained in the graph here. http://www.electology.org/topic/tactical-voting http://www.electology.org/topic/tactical-voting In short, tactical voting isn't all that important. For instance, Score Voting and Approval Voting perform better with 100% strategic voters (in which case they are identical) than IRV does with 100% honest voting. So even if IRV magically encouraged all voters to be honest (which it doesn't), Score/Approval would still be superior. Score Voting is definitively superior to Approval Voting in terms of producing the right electoral outcome (ignoring practical concerns around complexity and the cost of adoption, upgrading voting machines, etc.). That's because, for tactical voters, both systems are the same. But for honest voters, Score Voting adds less noise/loss/distortion, because it doesn't force you to round your 7 up to a 10, or your 3 down to a 0. Hence better outcomes overall, as seen in this graph of Bayesian Regret figures. http://scorevoting.net/BayRegsFig.html http://scorevoting.net/BayRegsFig.html