> The actual tactics are even more complex than FPTP Maybe marginally? How would you describe the tactics of FPTP? They may be simpler, but in some elections i

> The actual tactics are even more complex than FPTP Maybe marginally? How would you describe the tactics of FPTP? They may be simpler, but in some elections it is the difference of expressing your actual preferences and voting for "who you have to." The nice thing with AV that I often see overlooked is that it always in a voters interest to vote for their favorite candidate. This is called the favorite betrayal criterion, and nearly all ordinal voting methods (inc FPTP) fail it. Even still though - the UX, strategy, counting, and expressing results of ranked choice voting (IRV) is considerably more complex than both AV and FPTP. And its failure of the precinct summability criterion is a huge liability that we could just avoid entirely. If you are in favor of other types of ranking, such as Borda, why not just Score? Score is counted identically, but without the restriction of "you can only vote for one candidate in each rank or we'll toss your ballot." I agree that it would be nicer to give a more nuanced vote than just like/dislike, but I personally see AV as a stepping stone to other, more nuanced forms of Cardinal Voting. And who knows? Many online interfaces have moved from the star system in favor of thumbs up/down, and none that I'm aware of use ranking. Maybe there is an argument for a simpler UX in order to get more people to engage.