3 ms·
I have participated, however, my candidate was not going to win and the eventual winner was not my choice. Admittedly even in a FPTP, my candidate would lose,
by mc32 3y ago
I have participated, however, my candidate was not going to win and the eventual winner was not my choice. Admittedly even in a FPTP, my candidate would lose, so no diff. That said, there have been scenarios such as described here: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2019/12/12/opinion/no-it-threatens-distort-election-outcomes/ https://www.bostonglobe.com/2019/12/12/opinion/no-it-threate... and here: https://www.deseret.com/2023/1/9/23518790/voter-confusion-grows-alongside-ranked-choice-voting https://www.deseret.com/2023/1/9/23518790/voter-confusion-gr... among other places.
You may disagree with that take and say it only happens sometimes. I think we can at least agree it's not settled that it results in better election cycles.
- jlkuester7 3y agoVery interesting! Thanks for sharing! And yes, I 100% agree that more data is needed before drawing broad conclusions regarding the effectiveness of RCV (particularly when compared to FPTP). I found the discussion in the Deseret piece regarding how the result of the Alaska senatorial election seemed "unintuitive" to many voters to be very interesting! When I look at the numbers and results in that election is seems clear that the outcome is exactly what I would hope to see (and seemingly is a text-book case of RCV in action). But alas, when you deploy to production, things rarely go as planned and it is clear that I need to give more weight to the human element in all of this. Even if the results are statistically desirable, that does not mean that voters will actually feel good about the result of the election....