Do it right and do it once, don’t half-arse it and pretend you’ll get around to finishing it off later.
Momentum is hard to get, be careful aiming for the lesser option because you may not be able to ever get the public to care enough again to push for the better option.
That’s the very definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good. We can have really good now, or we can debate ad nauseum for decades about what would be perfect, never reach an agreement, and have done nothing.
The last time you posted this, I commented about all the reddit users that disappeared the day after the vote. I hate repeating myself, so here is a different anecdote.
During the campaign, many people - including yours truly - pointed out that if the admitedly mediocre change was rejected, the powers that be would argue that ‘the people’ had voted against change - any change. And that is exactly what happened https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-13297573.
…the referendum had delivered a “resounding answer that settles the question” over electoral change and people now wanted the government…
David Cameron (Prime Minister)
I personally believe that this result will settle the debate over changing our electoral system for the next generation.
Matthew Eliot (Leader of the No campaign)
You get exactly one chance at this. As Ru Paul likes to say, Do Not Fuck It Up.
STAR voting encourages single candidate votes too much if you’re voting for the underdog. Lets say it’s Biden Trump and Sanders. If I want Bernie, assuming hes the underdog to Biden, I have incentive to not rank Biden at all because if I do he gets points that could push him ahead of Bernie. Its in my best interest to make sure Bernie gets the biggest point differential from my ballot which means only voting for Bernie and no one else.
So for anyone who’s going to vote what would be third party, the best they can do is not rank anyone else, defeating the whole point and ensuring what people call the spoiler effect will still exist.
ALL the systems you proposed have problems, not just RCV. You have to pick your poison so to speak.
The problem with any scoring style system is that there is no answer for when a person gives 2 finalists the same score. They want to vote, but the system did not gather enough information to know where to allocate it.
Ranked Robin is a better choice than RCV.
STAR voting is a better option also.
RCV has it’s problems
Just be careful you’re not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
FPTP is absolutely the worst. Anything else is a massive improvement.
Do it right and do it once, don’t half-arse it and pretend you’ll get around to finishing it off later.
Momentum is hard to get, be careful aiming for the lesser option because you may not be able to ever get the public to care enough again to push for the better option.
tl;dr: 1 change is easier to pull off than 2
That’s the very definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good. We can have really good now, or we can debate ad nauseum for decades about what would be perfect, never reach an agreement, and have done nothing.
Wrong. We did exactly what you suggest in the U.K. Any kind of PR is off the table for at least a generation here.
RCV is leagues ahead of FPTP. Star is literally just FPTP with a run off. And Ranked Robin is complex.
That’s why RCV keeps getting the nod. It’s not the best scientific system, it’s the one at the crux of improvement and ease of understanding.
The last time you posted this, I commented about all the reddit users that disappeared the day after the vote. I hate repeating myself, so here is a different anecdote.
During the campaign, many people - including yours truly - pointed out that if the admitedly mediocre change was rejected, the powers that be would argue that ‘the people’ had voted against change - any change. And that is exactly what happened https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-13297573.
David Cameron (Prime Minister)
Matthew Eliot (Leader of the No campaign)
You get exactly one chance at this. As Ru Paul likes to say, Do Not Fuck It Up.
STAR voting encourages single candidate votes too much if you’re voting for the underdog. Lets say it’s Biden Trump and Sanders. If I want Bernie, assuming hes the underdog to Biden, I have incentive to not rank Biden at all because if I do he gets points that could push him ahead of Bernie. Its in my best interest to make sure Bernie gets the biggest point differential from my ballot which means only voting for Bernie and no one else.
So for anyone who’s going to vote what would be third party, the best they can do is not rank anyone else, defeating the whole point and ensuring what people call the spoiler effect will still exist.
ALL the systems you proposed have problems, not just RCV. You have to pick your poison so to speak.
In approval voting we trust
The problem with any scoring style system is that there is no answer for when a person gives 2 finalists the same score. They want to vote, but the system did not gather enough information to know where to allocate it.
I didn’t think you could give two candidates the same ranking?