4 ms·
I wouldn't. This method of ranked choice voting is really bad. FPTP is awful. IRV is awful-1%. Why not choose something good like range or approval voting tha
by tryptophan 4y ago
I wouldn't.
This method of ranked choice voting is really bad. FPTP is awful. IRV is awful-1%.
Why not choose something good like range or approval voting that doesn't have all these bizarre gotchas and strategies about who is 3rd?
Score and range are even simpler to tabulate than IRV.
- pclmulqdq 4y agoIRV is really bad, and this is an example as to why. If you want to use a confusing voting system (to the average person, IRV is very confusing), you should be doing the Condorcet algorithm with an IRV tiebreaker among the winners. Approval voting, on the other hand, is very simple to understand and doesn't have the same spoiler effect problems that FPTP and IRV both have.
- colinmhayes 4y agoApproval still disincentivizes third parties. If you're the tie breaking vote(which is the only time your vote actually matters) your incentive is to vote only for the candidate you most support.
- pclmulqdq 4y agoIn terms of strategic voting, if you are okay with 2 candidates in a close 3+ candidate race, refusing to vote for one of them in favor of the other risks the candidate you don't prefer winning the election. I think your idea about being the tiebreaker is a little reductive, since it really assumes you are choosing between 1 of n candidates you like, and that the other candidates are known to be losers.