As always: Ranked Choice is a specific use of ranked ballots. It’s so-so. It beats what we’re doing now, but… anything beats what we’re doing now.
What people want - how people think ranked ballots pick a winner, when they haven’t really thought about it - is a Condorcet method like Ranked Pairs. The winner is whoever would take every 1v1. There’s no “it shoulda been” because that gets mathematically accounted for. Nobody gets eliminated early on and ignored as a popular compromise.
… and of course we should be doing Approval Voting by default, where you let people check multiple names. Dead simple. Somehow matches Condorcet results. Same ballots as now, just with one fewer restriction. There is no good reason we’re not doing it already.
Third parties that aren’t shouting any of about these are frauds. They can’t win and they don’t care.
As always: Ranked Choice is a specific use of ranked ballots. It’s so-so. It beats what we’re doing now, but… anything beats what we’re doing now.
What people want - how people think ranked ballots pick a winner, when they haven’t really thought about it - is a Condorcet method like Ranked Pairs. The winner is whoever would take every 1v1. There’s no “it shoulda been” because that gets mathematically accounted for. Nobody gets eliminated early on and ignored as a popular compromise.
… and of course we should be doing Approval Voting by default, where you let people check multiple names. Dead simple. Somehow matches Condorcet results. Same ballots as now, just with one fewer restriction. There is no good reason we’re not doing it already.
Third parties that aren’t shouting any of about these are frauds. They can’t win and they don’t care.