> So to really get away from the poisonous political polarization of our times, ranked choice is necessary, but it needs to be Borda or similar, not IRV. You a

> So to really get away from the poisonous political polarization of our times, ranked choice is necessary, but it needs to be Borda or similar, not IRV. You are definitely better off, but none of these solve polarisation issue. All deliver the tyranny of the majority. In the current system we generally elect one person per electorate. If you have 4 polarised groups, the split is 40%, 30%, 20% and 10%, and they are roughly evenly distributed among the electorates, then most of the people elected will be from the 40% group simply because they will win most electorates. The 40% will run the place, the other 60% will get very little say in what happens. This doesn't change much if you use one of the other voting systems. Lets 30% and 20% groups mostly agree with each other. It's true that with First Past Post the place is run by the 40%'s. But if with one of the others the only change is it the place will likely run by a coalition of the 30% + 20% because they are the only ones that will be elected. So yes the people in power change - but again 50% the people get no say in parliament. We are a whole 10% getter off. Whoopee. One way to get a balance is to have bigger electorates and have 10 people elected from each. Since 10 are elected from each the likely outcome is 4 of the 40%'s, 3 of the 30%'s and so on. Since none have a majority in parliament, they all have to compromise to get what they want. And that nice outcome happens regardless of which of these voting systems you use. I think all this focus on voting systems distracts from the real issue - tyranny of the majority.