3 ms·

The first article talks about logistics of doing it in practice, which as other countries and Maine will see, can be done. Another article pushes Ranged voting

The first article talks about logistics of doing it in practice, which as other countries and Maine will see, can be done. Another article pushes Ranged voting which is in the same family as IRV. Overall IRV > current process.

naasking 10y ago
> The first article talks about logistics of doing it in practice, which as other countries and Maine will see, can be done. The flaws consist of more than simple logistical problems, such as: * The requirement to count votes centrally to handle ranked choice makes it more susceptible to fraud (flaw #2 and #16). * Makes exit polls virtually useless as third-party verification vote data, which just compounds the flaws of the above (flaw #7) -- this all ties into auditing difficulties (flaw #9). * They cite data that IRV actually entrenches the two-party system wherever it's been tried, so it doesn't actually solve some of the problems it's supposed to solve (flaw #11). * Counter-intuitive results, such as ranking your first choice last could cause them to win, while ranking them first could cause them to lose (flaw #12). * They cite data suggesting that IRV favours extremist candidates, or candidates that are worse for everyone except special interests (flaw #13, similar to flaw #12). * Not all votes are treated equally, so some votes count more than others (flaw #14) None of these are logistical problems. The other links I provided suggested that IRV may actually be illegal in the US for various reasons. So I'm not convinced that IRV is better than the current process.