[YokoZar]

"Strategy-proof" is a really strange thing to strive for. Making dishonest strategic voting "really really hard" is more than good enough.

By way of example, exploiting a strategic voting vulnerability in certain ranked ballot elections can require both near-perfect information about how everyone else is voting and then solving an NP-hard math problem.

Saying that such an exploit is theoretically possible and then to start talking about dictatorships as being immune is like saying there's a risk someone will win the lottery unless we ban earning money.

[ece]

Polling tries to figure out how everyone is going to vote, and if you look at the trends, it still mostly works. NP-hard problems can be estimated. I'm not saying that systems like RCV aren't better when compared to others, but that parties can still attempt to game the system.

Ultimately, the real tradeoffs with voting systems are societal I feel. Districts aren't mentioned enough in conversations like this. You can have districts and elect multiple people, through smaller and closer elections. If you must elect one person, you can still have an odd number of districts and pick a winner. To game neutrally drawn districts, people would have to move.