/r/50501 Mirror

There are a number of states that have implemented ranked choice in various localities. That's effectively the strategy being followed by Fair vote. State level changes since that's where there is most agility. Do that enough and eventually national changes will seem obvious and overdue.

But really, what we could have done and can do is require at a minimum, as a litmus test, candidates who support RCV.

Some cities in my state started using RCV for local elections. Then, almost immediately, the state legislature made an amendment to our constitution banning any voting system other than FPTP...

And slightly fancier than approval voting for multiple winner elections.

It's my understanding they all have an issue such as this where choosing a second pick still can spoil your first or such that some other candidate wins which was not the top choice due to ranking spoilers.

AZ

I mean, we would a little bit. We'd have have to allow for the cast and counted to include multiple people per seat. It's easier to explain and understand for the layman than instant runoff, though, which is a big benefit too

Who wins according to approval voting? B. Who wins against every opponent 1-on-1? A.

I mean, yes. That is the point of approval. A is the clear favorite for 70% of voters. But 30% of voters like him least of all or not at all. The end result of an instant runoff or fptp election would mean that A wins and leaves 30% of voters feeling like the worst possible outcome happened. I dont consider 30% of voters hating their new circumstances as a win.

With Approval voting, you vote for every individual for whom you would be okay with winning (and you get to decide your criteria for what makes someone an acceptable choice). So the winner is the one that the maximum number of people feel like, by whatever criteria they themselves judged the candidates, they are acceptable and they can get behind that winner. In your example B wins. B was nobody's absolute favorite, but absolutely everybody approves of them as a leader. I consider that a win. Democracy is about compromise. B is compromise incarnate. Yes, that does tend to push toward the middle, but again, that is the nature of compromise.

My problem with Instant Runoff/Ranked Choice is that it also should normally push toward the middle, but it often doesn't when the election is highly polarized. Change your example just a bit:

• A > B: 49
• B > C > A: 3
• C > B: 48

In the first runoff, B is eliminated even though he was ranked 1st or 2nd by every voter. C wins even though 49 percent of the voters didn't even rank C. It's hard to argue, even, that that outcome is better than FPTP where A would have one becuase at least then only 48 percent didn't even rank them. Either way, there is no compromise here. One of the extreme candidates wins with barely majority support. B, who would have won the approval vote with 100% never even stood a chance in this election as he was nobody's first choice. Ranked choice gives too much preference to favorites which can still end up with extreme polarization even if people aren't intentionally voting that way.

But I'm not shitting on Instant Runnoff/Ranked choice, or whatever we call it. It's a step in the right direction and gives people the freedom to truly and freely support third parties that better align with thier ideals without (much) fear of spoiling the vote. And for both systems, the absolute worse case scenario for both Approval and Ranked Choice voting is that every single voter does not participate in the spirit of the system, tries to game it, and only ranks/approves of a single candidate. Only their absolute favorite will get their vote. Nobody else is even good enough. You know that that result is? Exactly what we have now. First Past The Post/Plurality. Kind of fitting that what we have now is rock bottom, huh?

Will this change the minds of MAGA voters to not vote for a racist dipshit? Your proposal does not deal with the large amount of people who voted for the current jerk. You have a hammer and everything looks like a nail to you.