2 ms·

I would actually still prefer IRV to FPTP. The center candidate's boundary can be unpredictable, but the other boundaries are in basically the same place as the

I would actually still prefer IRV to FPTP. The center candidate's boundary can be unpredictable, but the other boundaries are in basically the same place as they are for approval and Condorcet. FPTP shifts all the boundaries and drastically reduces or eliminates center candidates' winning regions. (I'd also prefer it to Borda, which drastically enlarges center candidates' winning regions). That said, I agree that approval seems to strike the best balance between simplicity and outcome, with the caveat that where possible we should also have proportional representation rather than winner-take-all districts, e.g. https://www.fairvote.org/fair_representation https://www.fairvote.org/fair_representation

jdmichal 6y ago
Agreed on all accounts. I'm mostly just disappointed that, when the chance comes to actually affect change, we seem to mostly just be moving from one provably broken system (FPTP) to another (IRV). While at the same time increasing complexity more than necessary to achieve a better outcome. But even with IRV, I would be happy I could finally throw some votes at third-party candidates whose platform I align with, without throwing away my entire vote.