• PizzaMan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Not sure I follow the “FPTP with layers” argument. After each layer, the votes go to the next choice rather than being wasted.

    Round one is a check for a +50% majority. If there is no majority, then it eliminates the lowest voted candidate and moves on.

    /\

    |

    This first half is identical in function to FPTP voting. So ranked choice is basically FPTP but repeated a couple times with eliminations. Like I said, it is still definitely better than FPTP, but it has the possibility of vote splitting, albeit to a much smaller degree. A strategic voter wouldn’t vote for their first pick first, but would instead vote for the closest candidate to them that has a high chance of winning. And that’s the hole we are currently stuck in as is.

    but ballot counts could definitely be published as they come in (N ballots with order ABCD, M ballots with order DBA, etc)

    If there are 5 candidates in a given race, something that is rather common, then there would be 120 different orders. That’s not data that is easily digestible or auditable. And that number gets exponentially worse the more candidates there are, and ideally we should have a good number of candidates to choose from to make sure we get the best one.