Score Then Automatic Runoff.
3 Likes
The first principle here is Score voting performs very well if voters are honest but it loses a degree of accuracy if they follow the strategic incentive to exaggerate. But if you take the top two scored candidates and do a pairwise comparison, the incentive to be dishonest goes away, and so you get a strong system that consistently delivers representative results.
Thatâs what STAR is: Score voting, Then an Automatic Runoff.
2 Likes
We had a local RCV for our mayor last year. It was confusing but the problem of a âspoiler candidateâ was obvious. Thatâs my primary objection to both plurality and RCV.
1 Like
Iâd add that the threat of a spoiler creates a need for parties. âAn end to partiesâ is more plausible with STAR or Approval, because the need to gatekeep is actually diminished.
2 Likes
Hopefully, Alaska will be voting to get rid of RCV. It was sold to Alaskans as a way to âfind a happy mediumâ, but that was not the case at all. Many voters did not understand how it worked, voted incorrectly, and then their vote was invalid. We also ended up with politicians that no one wanted.
4 Likes
Any interpretation of ranked choice voting being âcommunismâ is just simply not understanding either what communism is, ranked choice voting is, or both.
2 Likes
I am for an alternate method rather than what we have now which is to force people to pick to pick the lesser of two evils. And I used to be a RCV advocate, but I have to admit, it hasnât gone well where tried.
Another alternative I now would like to see which I think would be a better and easier system, is âapproval votingâ. Pick as many candidates as you want essentially, that you want to see win, or could live with. I think this would be more of a game changer than RCV and much simpler for people to grasp.
2 Likes
but it doesnât matter that everyone grades differently â in fact, thatâs one of the many advantages of Score voting (same as Star voting). further, Score voting has the least amount of Bayesian Regret.
https://rangevoting.org/BayRegsFig.html
1 Like
Approval Voting is Score/Range Voting with only a range of 2. and yes, itâs FAR better than any other system, however, it is limiting to only have a range of 2. a range of 5 or 10 is much better.
AV (Score Voting with a 2 point range) is still better than any other voting system. i would prefer a 5 or 10 point range, which EVERYONE uses already .
Ranked choice voting combined with one open (not party) primary that selects the 5 top candidates to advance to the general election. Is a great idea.
Katherine Gehl has been a leader in this space. You can check out her org at. Final-Five Voting â The Institute for Political Innovation
i believe relative to this topic, regarding anti-gerrymanderingâŚ
IRV vs. SV/RV
https://rangevoting.org/rangeVirv.html
IRV also (besides PV) leads to 2-party domination
https://rangevoting.org/TarrIrv.html
1 Like
Absolutely not. RCV is terrible and has been experimented on Alaskans and we are voting to get rid of it.
-
Itâs confusing especially to elders and people who may have a learning disability ie dyslexia⌠High schoolers are now only at a 4th grade really level, and every year they send out fliers to teach people how to use the system. That means itâs too complicated. Many ballots are tossed out because people donât fill out the ballot correctly.
-
It manipulates people into thinking they have to choose more than one option, thereby falsely appearing that the candidate has support when they donât.
-
If you vote for only one candidate, and everyone else votes for more than one, they effectively got to vote multiple times.
-
It forces you to strategize how to vote. You may vote for the least likely person to win as you top choice so that your vote then goes to your second or third choice in order to play the system. Parties will purposely put bad choices in in order to stack the vote in favor of their actual chosen candidate.
5.RCV relies on computers to tally votes, making it virtually impossible to recount and forcing citizens to be tied to an electronic counting system. Recounting these redistributed votes would be a huge mess.
6 .RCV requires a 51% minimum to win. Normally, with one ballot, one vote, the one with the most wins ie 100, 101, 100, 102 the person with 102 wins. They want it so that one candidate in this case gets 205.53 votes to prove itâs the majorityâs choice. You canât have a true majority with RCV because now you are manipulating numbers.
Bottom line. Itâs terrible, confusing, manipulative, and opens the door for dark money to influence the elections by stuffing the ballot with nonsense candidates.
2 Likes
Correct! And RCV is on the ballot this year to get rid of it because we saw how terrible it is. No one should use Alaska as an example of its success. We are voting it out!
3 Likes
STAR voting, sadly, is a bit of a scam 
I used to be part of their slack but they kicked me out once I started questioning it 
If you want to see the long-winded version:
Itâs not dependent on computers
All you need is every combination of votes - so if you have 3 candidates running, A,B, C you just need a tally like this:
A: 10
B: 5
C: 9
A > B: 10
A > C: 5
etc.
Is it a bit more complicated to count? Sure; but you can do it by hand (at least, as much as you can do 10,000,000 votes by hand - these days, for the large #s, we need computers anyway)
1 Like
All true, not to mention you donât have to vote for more than one - you could still just put your favorite & nothing else
But RCV doesnât make much of a difference, sadly, without proportional:
STAR voting is a distraction invented to confuse people who are interested in getting rid of the âspoilerâ problem by using RCV. I suspect the DNC is behind it. (Iâm a little paranoid/cynical.) RCV is the only system in use, with success, in many town, states, countries throughout the world.
2 Likes
Actually, you provide no evidence for this claim.