[9283409232]

The answer is to vote out politicians. Getting ranked choice voting on your states ballot would go a long way to fixing this. They would not have Mamdani on the ballot for NY mayor if it wasn't for ranked choice voting. Certain politicans know this and have made RCV illegal in their state. Get RCV on the ballot for your state.

[mindslight]

RCV / Ranked Pairs of course. The IRV decision process is still a relic of the two party system, with the possibility for some pretty terrible strategic-voting dynamics as votes diverge from just two major parties.

[dragonwriter]

RCV is another name for IRV, it is not a generic name for the use of ranked ballots.

[FireBeyond]

> Certain politicans know this and have made RCV illegal in their state.

That would be Republicans.

While Democrats have pushed across multiple states for changing voting mechanisms, Republicans in eleven states have pre-emptively banned any and all use of RCV at any level within the state.

[AnthonyMouse]

Score voting (or STAR) is better.

[9283409232]

Anything is better than what we have and ranked choice voting is the most popular alternative.

[AnthonyMouse]

If you're doing a new thing anyway then it makes no sense to do something worse instead of something better. Popularity is determined by people; make the better thing the popular one.

[9283409232]

It absolutely makes sense. You need buy in from the public. RCV is the most known alternative and it has taken a decade to get it that far. If you want to start the work of informing people about STAR voting then be my guess but RCV is a tremendous improvement from what we have and an acceptable alternative.

[nerdsniper]

Personally I think “approval voting” is almost as good as RCV but orders of magnitude easier to sell to the public.

There’s just a checkbox next to each candidate and you check the box next to any candidate you’re “okay” with. Results in the most “okay-est” candidates getting elected so when the winner is announced everyone goes “…okay.”

Also could make primaries less important, because multiple candidates from a party could theoretically run for the general election without splitting votes.

Communication is easier because in RCV the candidate who gets the most #1 votes doesn’t necessarily win which could lead to a loss of confidence in the system. Its very easy to tell the American public “this guy got the most checkmarks” and no one gets confused.

[9283409232]

If I recall the problem with approval voting is that it is much easier to tamper with than RCV. Filling in an empty bubble is a lot easier than changing the order of ranking on a ballot

[AnthonyMouse]

Most people don't actually know anything about any of this. If they've heard of RCV at all their understanding of it is at the level of "it's something different than the status quo and supposedly better". You could swap in STAR and they mostly wouldn't even notice that you've changed anything. But you'd notice the difference in the election outcomes, in a good way.

[9283409232]

Enough people know about it that it has been put on ballots in several states and has had strong pushes in other states while STAR hasn't at all. If you want to get outside and start informing people about STAR then please do but RCV has a decade long head start and is the path of least resistance.

[boroboro4]

Not important but Mamdani would’ve won without ranked choice voting too, it didn’t play a role in the end.

[tialaramex]

We can't know. Ranked choice changes how people vote.

In particular it gives people permission to vote for a candidate they like but don't expect to be able to win.