> Massachusetts ... also shot down ranked choice voting last year, because the math was too hard. The math wasn't "hard" - it was wrong. The decision process w

> Massachusetts ... also shot down ranked choice voting last year, because the math was too hard. The math wasn't "hard" - it was wrong. The decision process was to be instant runoff voting, which has significant problems. IRV is basically what people stuck in the two party mindset think they want so they can express support for a third party. But once a third party gains enough traction to become viable, perverse incentives (strategic voting) shows right back up again. What we really need is Ranked Choice ballots with Ranked Pairs decision process. This satisfies Condorcet which means that a winner is preferred by the majority of voters.