tylerammon
December 2, 2024, 9:40pm
6
When people first learn other voting methods exist, it is usually first by RCV activists. However, if they start taking a serious look into other systems, they’ll usually abandon RCV.
The basic idea is that RCV doesn’t follow through on all the promises made about it. Instead of overcoming the two-party system, it perpetuates it. It presents the individual voter with a freer ballot, then counts it in a stupid way that still restricts the voter.
I could go on, but I’ve already written plenty elsewhere:
There are a lot of promises made about RCV, but there are many reasons to think it (a) does next to nothing to improve representation in government, and (b) the drawbacks outweigh any nominal gain in accuracy.
I’d start with the fact that even FairVote recognizes RCV elections agree with our current system at least 93% of the time . I say “at least” because strategic voting in our current system has similarities with the instant runoff model: Whether it is the voter or the IRV system, support fo…
I’d appreciate if RCV advocates stopped promoting the instant runoff model, and went with a Condorcet model like Ranked Robin . The most egregious failures of RCV are from the way it counts ballots, leading to inefficiencies in administration, and mistrust in the results, which can seem chaotic.
Ranked Robin is both simpler to administer, and more intuitive: People are already used to the idea of a sports tournament (i.e. a “Round Robin”), where teams play against each other, and the team who wi…
No, RCV does not help third parties, and I have the receipts: