[tadmilbourn]

Thanks! The idea is to use software to promote this reform (as well as Final-Five Voting...which is Open Primaries + RCV)

As for advanced tactics, if you're really into it, Rob Richie, the CEO of FairVote (leading national advocacy org) put this in the New York Times over the weekend. It spells out a bunch of scenarios (e.g. "I want Garcia to win and Stringer to lose.") and how to tactically vote for each.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/18/opinion/nyc-mayoral-elect...

BUT the point I'd want to drive home is that ranked-choice allows you to be FAR more able to "vote for who you believe is best" than in the more common most votes wins approach (where you have to be strategic the moment a 3rd candidate enters).

[ClayShentrup]

IRV has the same problem. Democrats in next year's Alaska senate race want to strategically rank Murkowksi (R) 1st to stop Tshibaka (Q).

https://twitter.com/Beyond2Parties/status/140537245401753600...

Score voting or approval voting actually solve this and are much simpler.

[lalaland1125]

Yeah, that article is exactly what I was thinking about, but I think it would be better if it mentioned more general tactics (such as the inherent advantage of making sure to rank front runners since they will last longer).

Once this NYC election is over we should look at the voting records and see how many votes were lost due to poor tactics (forgetting to rank front runners).