[jszymborski]

No voting method meets every criterion but two of my favourites are

- Schulze Method [0]

- Ranked Pairs [1]

The Schulze method allows for a simple ranked choice ballot, and satisfies more criteria than other RCV methods. Downside is that it is hecking complicated so it can feel like an opaque process. With distrustful electors it's a no go imo.

The Ranked Pairs method satisfies a similar number of criteria as Schulze, and meets a weaker version of later-no-harm. It's also a very intuitive method. The main downside is that the ballots become impossibly long, scaling quadratically with the number of candidates.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_pairs

[nearting]

Ranked pairs does not have a quadratic ballot length, since all of the preference information can be computed from a single ranking of the candidates.

[jszymborski]

How did I never realize this. Thank you.

EDIT: I was also swapped "later-no-harm" with "independence of irrelevant alternatives". I should stop writing comments before my morning coffee.

[mindslight]

I've been going around saying we need to push in the direction of a Condorcet voting system while handwaving away the possibility of a Condorcet tie, because all systems can result in ties. I hadn't realized there was a straightforward method that drastically reduced the amount of ties neatly called "Ranked Pairs". And that's with plenty of coffee.

Now if only we can change the political zeitgeist from "Ranked Choice Voting" implying Instant Runoff Voting, to RCV implying Ranked Pairs. IRV is merely what victims of the two party duopoly think they want to express their current frustration, but it would fall apart the more we actually got away from the one dimensional spectrum.