Ranked Choice is literally a series of plurality elections on the same ballot.
So it’s exactly as bad as plurality, but worse because it’s also confusing to count, and has inherent security issues from needing to be counted in a centralized location.
You cannot fix the problems of plurality by iterating plurality.
Ranked Choice is very attractive to people who don’t realize that it marginalizes third parties even more than a simple plurality election.
Here’s the thing, if your third party is small and has no chance of actually winning, then Ranked Choice will keep them from ruining the election for the two major parties.
The thing is, the second that third party becomes even slightly more popular than the major party closest to them on the spectrum, the candidate furthest from them on the spectrum wins.
See, if A B and C are in an election where A has 40%, B has 29% and C (the new third party) has 31%. When B is eliminated, it doesn’t matter that Every single C voter put B as their second, because B is gone.
All it takes is for a third of B voters (10% of the total) to put A first for A to win. This is the absolute worst outcome for C voters, and if just a handful had voted dishonestly for B first, B would have won.
This is a high bar to hit when there are only three candidates, but when there are five? Well, the numbers get worse. More than that, and RCV just starts breaking in new and interesting ways.
Ranked Choice is a broken system pretending to be a viable one. In my top comment, I pointed to a bunch of real world examples of it breaking down in ways that no other voting system is subject to.
It’s not exactly as bad, because it does present opportunities for breaking the deadlocked two party system. It does not go far enough to improve on plurality, and I agree that the logistical issues make implementation a fools errand. The spoiler effect is still an edge case that has much less effect than a simple plurality vote between 3 candidates.
I’m not advocating for ranked choice. I’m on board with STAR voting, and I also like almost any other voting system better than both plurality and ranked choice.
It does not, in fact, break the two party system. Full stop.
RCV still has the spoiler effect, and is in fact worse for third parties.
If the third party is small, then RCV will sideline them harder than FPtP, if they get big enough to matter, then RCV will break and the worst candidate will be elected.
See any RCV election with three or more viable candidates, but particularly Burlington 2009.
So RCV fails to do the one thing that people say it’s good for. It does not break the two party system. Something we’ve known for a long time, seeming as how it’s used in one category of Australian elections, and that particular category is dominated by two parties. (other areas of Australian politics use proportional elections, but one section of their government is single winner RCV)
Ranked Choice is literally a series of plurality elections on the same ballot.
So it’s exactly as bad as plurality, but worse because it’s also confusing to count, and has inherent security issues from needing to be counted in a centralized location.
You cannot fix the problems of plurality by iterating plurality.
If say, your goal is elevating third parties, ranked choice is very attractive, as 3p voters can do so without “throwing away” their vote.
Not refuting your concerns, just saying folks are drawn to systems for particular reasons.
Ranked Choice is very attractive to people who don’t realize that it marginalizes third parties even more than a simple plurality election.
Here’s the thing, if your third party is small and has no chance of actually winning, then Ranked Choice will keep them from ruining the election for the two major parties.
The thing is, the second that third party becomes even slightly more popular than the major party closest to them on the spectrum, the candidate furthest from them on the spectrum wins.
See, if A B and C are in an election where A has 40%, B has 29% and C (the new third party) has 31%. When B is eliminated, it doesn’t matter that Every single C voter put B as their second, because B is gone.
All it takes is for a third of B voters (10% of the total) to put A first for A to win. This is the absolute worst outcome for C voters, and if just a handful had voted dishonestly for B first, B would have won.
This is a high bar to hit when there are only three candidates, but when there are five? Well, the numbers get worse. More than that, and RCV just starts breaking in new and interesting ways.
Ranked Choice is a broken system pretending to be a viable one. In my top comment, I pointed to a bunch of real world examples of it breaking down in ways that no other voting system is subject to.
It’s not exactly as bad, because it does present opportunities for breaking the deadlocked two party system. It does not go far enough to improve on plurality, and I agree that the logistical issues make implementation a fools errand. The spoiler effect is still an edge case that has much less effect than a simple plurality vote between 3 candidates.
I’m not advocating for ranked choice. I’m on board with STAR voting, and I also like almost any other voting system better than both plurality and ranked choice.
It does not, in fact, break the two party system. Full stop.
RCV still has the spoiler effect, and is in fact worse for third parties.
If the third party is small, then RCV will sideline them harder than FPtP, if they get big enough to matter, then RCV will break and the worst candidate will be elected.
See any RCV election with three or more viable candidates, but particularly Burlington 2009.
So RCV fails to do the one thing that people say it’s good for. It does not break the two party system. Something we’ve known for a long time, seeming as how it’s used in one category of Australian elections, and that particular category is dominated by two parties. (other areas of Australian politics use proportional elections, but one section of their government is single winner RCV)