4 ms·

There's a lot of kinds of ranked-choice voting, but the one this article describes is instant-runoff voting. It's particularly bad in that it isn't even monoton

There's a lot of kinds of ranked-choice voting, but the one this article describes is instant-runoff voting. It's particularly bad in that it isn't even monotonic, i.e., you can lose an election because too many people voted for you. IMO, it's actually worse than the system we use today. I agree a different system could be better, but not this one. (My preference would be for either approval or score voting.)

xen0 2y ago
Given US presidential elections have, twice in my lifetime, been won by person with fewer votes than another, this would not be a concerning change.
- josephcsible 2y ago
  Being nonmonotonic is way worse than that. Imagine a case where all of the ballots except one have been counted and it's really close. In IRV, it's possible that if the last ballot prefers Biden, then Trump wins, and if the last ballot prefers Trump, then Biden wins.
robcohen 2y ago
According to FairVote, the organization behind RCV in the US, RCV is the only option that is resistant to strategic voting. https://fairvote.org/resources/electoral-systems/comparing-voting-methods/ https://fairvote.org/resources/electoral-systems/comparing-v... Disclosure: I am a member of FairVote
- josephcsible 2y ago
  I take issue with the phrasing "the only option that is resistant". Per the Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem, it's definitely not completely resistant to strategic voting, and other options are each resistant to it to different degrees.
ZeroGravitas 2y ago
Liking approval or score voting but preferring plurality/ftpt over ranked choice is a bit of an unusual opinion surely? I knew fans of the various alternatives get a bit competitive but wasn't aware that they'd got to the extremes of claiming the others were worse than the status quo.
- josephcsible 2y ago
  > preferring plurality/ftpt over ranked choice Let me be clear: I prefer FPTP over IRV in particular, not over all ranked-choice systems.

xen0 2y ago

Given US presidential elections have, twice in my lifetime, been won by person with fewer votes than another, this would not be a concerning change.

josephcsible 2y ago
Being nonmonotonic is way worse than that. Imagine a case where all of the ballots except one have been counted and it's really close. In IRV, it's possible that if the last ballot prefers Biden, then Trump wins, and if the last ballot prefers Trump, then Biden wins.

robcohen 2y ago

According to FairVote, the organization behind RCV in the US, RCV is the only option that is resistant to strategic voting. https://fairvote.org/resources/electoral-systems/comparing-voting-methods/ https://fairvote.org/resources/electoral-systems/comparing-v... Disclosure: I am a member of FairVote

josephcsible 2y ago
I take issue with the phrasing "the only option that is resistant". Per the Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem, it's definitely not completely resistant to strategic voting, and other options are each resistant to it to different degrees.

ZeroGravitas 2y ago

Liking approval or score voting but preferring plurality/ftpt over ranked choice is a bit of an unusual opinion surely? I knew fans of the various alternatives get a bit competitive but wasn't aware that they'd got to the extremes of claiming the others were worse than the status quo.

josephcsible 2y ago
> preferring plurality/ftpt over ranked choice Let me be clear: I prefer FPTP over IRV in particular, not over all ranked-choice systems.