5 ms·

Thanks! And both approval and RCV are steps in the right direction. For whatever reason, RCV has been implemented more broadly (but still just a tiny fraction o

Thanks! And both approval and RCV are steps in the right direction. For whatever reason, RCV has been implemented more broadly (but still just a tiny fraction of the US). I've been very encouraged by the results in Alaska after the special election that just happened there in August. 85% found it simple. 73% ranked multiple candidates. And the election workers implementing it had a flawless go of it. Some data from one of the groups that helped educate voters: https://alaskansforbetterelections.com/polling-shows-alaskan-voters-understand-ranked-choice-voting/ https://alaskansforbetterelections.com/polling-shows-alaskan...

dane-pgp 4y ago
> 85% found it simple. 73% ranked multiple candidates. But what's conspicuously absent from these statistics is how happy the voters are with the outcome (compared to a counterfactual world where the election had been carried out under FPTP and a potentially different candidate won). Sadly it was an outcome which allowed Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) to make the argument[0] that: > 60% of Alaska voters voted for a Republican, but thanks to a convoluted process and ballot exhaustion — which disenfranchises voters — a Democrat ‘won.’ This is exactly the sort of well-poisoning that supporters of other voting reforms are afraid of. [0] https://www.independentsentinel.com/60-of-voters-cast-ballots-for-republicans-a-democrat-won-in-alaska/ https://www.independentsentinel.com/60-of-voters-cast-ballot...
- creata 4y ago
  If the problem was ballot exhaustion, couldn't that have been solved by doing what Australia does, i.e. asking voters to rank all the candidates? That doesn't seem like a problem with instant runoff voting itself.