I think your points are reasonable and thoughtful, thanks for the constructive engagement. You are right in noticing that it's not exclusively an unforced rank

I think your points are reasonable and thoughtful, thanks for the constructive engagement. You are right in noticing that it's not exclusively an unforced ranking (which I agree is vastly superior to forced rankings!). So, in STAR, there's a different between 3 candidates scored as 5,1,0 versus 5,4,0. They count identically in the runoff stage (which is effectively the rank part of the system). But they count different in the score. I'm not convinced that difference is necessary, valuable, or intuitive to people, but I'm not convinced it isn't. I think these things need more real-world case studies. I definitely think the distinction isn't fatal or anything. I see how it could have a positive impact on outcomes. I don't agree that multi-round eliminations are simpler than STAR per se. I'm certainly inclined to see 3-2-1 voting as a competitor with STAR for best overall system.