[notriddle]

> Ranked voting isn't vulnerable to bullet voting.

"Vulnerable to bullet voting" is the same thing as "violating the later-no-harm principle," which means that some forms of ranked voting are vulnerable, while others aren't.

- Borda Count is vulnerable to bullet voting, for the same reason as Score (giving points to anyone other than your first choice makes it less likely that your first choice wins, because it increases the score of your second and third choice).

- Condorcet systems are vulnerable to bullet voting, because the ordering of your second and third choices can potentially change who the Condorcet winner is.

- Instant Runoff is "immune" to bullet voting because the ranking of choices beyond the highest non-eliminated choice are ignored. This is also directly responsible for it being vulnerable to the spoiler effect, which makes non-bullet-voting pointless (your top choice must also be the choice most likely to win the 1-1 fight at the end, which means the remainder of your choices are highly unlikely to win, so why bother?).

[ClayShentrup]

later-no-harm is a bug not a feature. it's the whole reason IRV is so vulnerable to tactical voting.

https://clayshentrup.medium.com/later-no-harm-72c44e145510

for instance, alaska just elected peltola even though begich was preferred to peltola by a large 5% margin. palin voters preferred begich to peltola 10-to-1. but IRV ignored their 2nd choices. therefore they would have been better off strategically ranking begich as their favorite.

whereas with approval voting, once they cast a strategic vote for begich, it's safe to approve palin (and anyone else they prefer to their lesser evil). this is, in a nutshell, why score voting and approval voting (rated, not ranked, methods) are so superior. this is social choice theory 101.

https://electionscience.org/commentary-analysis/rcv-fools-pa...