Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

gslavik t1_j53h7ze wrote

TL;DR: RCV is better than plurality/fptp, but it is not without critique and it's worth learning/thinking about other election methods for a deeper discussion.

One issue with RCV is that it might not always produce a Condorcet winner. This is because RCV does not allow for circular preferences.

If you have three candidates: A, B, and C. The Condorcet winner is the one who wins all the "heads up" (1v1) contests. But it is also possible for voters to have a circular preference (A>B, B>C, C>A), whereas RCV removes that ability.

There is also STAR (Score Then Automatic Runoff), which I think is better than RCV due to it being able to pick a much better neutral winner, but good luck educating the average American on how that is good. In STAR, you score every candidate. Top two average/total scores win and move on to second round. Then you count ballots where one candidate is preferred more (scored higher) than the other candidate. So a candidate with the highest average/total in round 1 might end up losing to the second place finisher (of round 1).

On a side note: House districts should be multi member districts with STV/proportional representation voting.

6

squirreltalk OP t1_j53j0g2 wrote

I agree with a lot of what you said. RCV is where the momentum is, and that's largely why I personally support it.

6

ForgottenWatchtower t1_j55ds43 wrote

While you're not wrong, the improvements by moving from RCV to STAR are basically inconsequential when comparing either to FPTP. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

5