[tadmilbourn]

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...

[dane-pgp]

> 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-ballot...

[creata]

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.