New research shows ranked choice voting works better than the usual “pick one” system, helping elect candidates most voters actually support and avoiding spoiler chaos.
We’re curious what you think: Should more places try it?
theconversation.com/ranked-cho…
#USPolitics #Election
Ranked choice voting outperforms the winner-take-all system used to elect nearly every US politician
Ranked choice voting largely avoids the pitfalls of plurality voting, giving voters the power to express their true candidate preferences rather than being strategic.The Conversation
Solitha
in reply to The Conversation U.S. • • •It should be the norm. Break us out of the two-party lock and allow us to choose who we actually want rather than who might perform better in generals.
And maybe just get rid of primaries.
Matt Panhans
in reply to The Conversation U.S. • • •Bob K Mertz
in reply to The Conversation U.S. • • •It needs to be used everywhere.
#USPolitics #Election
David W. Jones
in reply to The Conversation U.S. • • •Bill Zaumen
in reply to The Conversation U.S. • • •Ranked choice voting has the same problem as winner take all due to Arrow's impossibility theorem. What could work better are systems where voters assign a grade to each candidate. Test your voting system against the following example - voting on going for lunch: 3 prefer meat & potatoes, 3 prefer Japanese, and Italian is a close 2nd for all 6. A 7th person prefers Italian with steaks as a 2nd choice.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_…
Result that no ranked-choice system is spoilerproof
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)Project 1789
in reply to The Conversation U.S. • • •I've never voted any other way in either state or federal elections. I see the US shitshow and am dumbfounded how idiotic it is.
We also have 'compulsory' voting which results in participation rates over 90%.
I can't imagine voting for a 3rd party candidate that would result in the opposite of my intentions.
Your politicians have to be so extreme to get voters engaged enough to vote.
@iveyline
in reply to The Conversation U.S. • • •Patrick O'Beirne
in reply to The Conversation U.S. • • •Bernd Paysan R.I.P Natenom 🕯️
in reply to The Conversation U.S. • • •SamuelJohnson
in reply to The Conversation U.S. • • •In Ireland we feel about it the way the NRA does about guns ("cold dead hands" etc).
We also have
Strict limits on political donations
State funding of political parties (2% vote threshold)
Boundaries set by independent body
Judiciary not appointed by politicians
No gerrymandering
No vote suppression
No grandiose conceit about being a beacon to the world.
US is a sham democracy with notions. In reality it's the best democracy a plutocracy can buy.
David Hopeward
in reply to The Conversation U.S. • • •David Greenbaum
in reply to The Conversation U.S. • • •