this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2025
949 points (98.1% liked)
/r/50501 Mirror
1219 readers
923 users here now
Mirrored /r/50501 Popular Posts
founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Ranked Choice is a bad system to use for elections.
And that's per its inventor, the Marchese de Condorcet back in the 1790s.
He came up with the instant runoff idea, and then tore it to pieces because of how poorly it performed. i.e. Instant Runoff almost never gives you the Pairwise winner, the person who would win in a direct one-to-one matchup against every other candidate.
In the 200 years since then, we've found other, more serious problems. Like the fact that the system is somehow not monotonic. Meaning that increasing the support to a candidate can actually cause them to lose the election.
There's more, but the main point stands. RCV is broken beyond repair.
A system that is not broken is STAR. Designed from the ground up to be a modern voting system.
Fun fact, while strategic voting is possible under STAR, it actually gives worse results for the strategic voter just being honest in your preference. Which is opposite of how pretty much every other voting system works.
What's STAR?
Found it: https://www.starvoting.org/
Was blocked for me for vpn reasons So here's a wiki link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/STAR_voting
Thanks
STAR is complicated to explain to people whose eyes glaze over when you start talking math and also has the problem that you can't tell someone how their vote will be counted until every other vote is counted first.
People who like STAR tend to overestimate how much those things matter when it comes to getting public buy in.
That's among the upsides of approval voting - it's dead easy to explain and already works with existing machines meaning it's cheaper to implement. It's biggest downside is arguably that it tends to trend towards moderate candidates with broad appeal, ones that are "good enough" for a wide assortment of people rather than necessarily being anyone's favorite.
STAR, rate these candidates on a scale of 0-5 multiple candidates can have the same rating. Done. How it's counted? Easy, the top two rated candidates go into an automatic run-off, if you rated A higher than B, your vote goes to A. if you rated them the same, your vote is counted as "no preference". Done.
That second step is mostly to get around some of the anti-democracy laws on the books in various states, but it also has the benefit of winnowing out clone candidates.
There's one weird voting system that's pretty good: ranked voting with fractional vote counting.
Your top candidate only gets the fraction of each vote they need to be guaranteed to stay in to the next round, the rest of your vote is available to the next candidate on your preference list.
In each round, one candidate will be eliminated. If there are 11 candidates now, there will be 10 next, so each candidate needs 1/10 of the votes to stay in.
Let's say there are 20000 voters so candidates need 2000 votes to guarantee being in the top ten. Your top candidate got 4000 votes, but they only need 2000 to guarantee going through. A half of your vote went to your top candidate.
Your second favourite candidate was more popular and got 8000 votes, so the people who voted for them used a quarter of their vote, by they have enough now anyway and don't need your vote at all to stay in. None of your vote is used on them.
Your third favourite got 1500 first place votes, which wasn't enough on its own. The people who voted them top used 100% of their vote to keep them in. But plenty of people voted for them lower down and they used up another quarter of your vote and stayed in.
And so on until one of the candidates can't get up to 2000 votes after higher preference candidates got kept in.
It's a great system that makes your best strategy to vote in preference order to let your preferences count in each round and across multiple rounds, but it has the disadvantage that people believe factions are hard and that somehow someone's tricking them if they're using hard math.
Why do multiple rounds and complex counting at all?
Just use STAR. It's easy, it's fast. And you can tell the world how much you actually like or hate every candidate rather than an arbitrary ranking where the options could be God, Ghandi, and then Hitler, and then somehow two more people worse than Hitler.
See? Just a simple ranking gives extremely limited information about your preference. Just that A is ranked above B.
Like A and B the same? You cannot communicate that via a ranking.
Absolutely hate B? Again you cannot communicate that via a ranking.
You need a rating system with a set good and bad.
STAR does that. And in a single round of counting.
If you want to include information about disliking candidates, you can include a "none of the above" option, which allows voters to star or rank candidates below "none of the above", effectively making those negative votes, because if "none of the above" wins, you re-run the election and none of the candidates who were on the ballot are allowed to stand again.
For example, with star voting + "none of the above", you could have voted 5 stars for your favourite candidate for president, 4 stars for "none of the above", one star for anyone else who isn't Donald J Trump and no stars for Trump, meaning that you supply very little support for the other not-DJT candidates to make it into the second round, but if it's Trump vs anyone, you still get to vote against Trump being president. By voting 4 stars for "none of the above", you get to raise the likelihood that the election is re-run if your favourite is eliminated, and hopefully your party stands a more popular candidate next time.
You have a slight misunderstanding here, which is my fault for not explaining the system.
STAR can handle any number of candidates because it's a Cardinal system. Meaning that you count the ratings independently. You can rate as many candidates as you want at 5 stars. Or Zero stars, or anything in-between.
That right there is the reason it's immune to the spoiler effect.
It also makes it, not immune to tactical voting, but resistant? Tactical voting exists, but using it actually gives you worse results. Your best results come from just being honest with your preferences.
Which is almost unheard of in voting systems.
Every other major voting system penalizes you for being honest.
It's unclear to me what you think I have misunderstood.
(The fractional voting system penalizes you for being dishonest, but it's not a major voting system and doesn't pass the person-in-the-street trusts it test.)
(I only mentioned the fractional voting one because you didn't explain star voting at all so I had nothing to compare it with. I like star voting now that I know more about it having looked it up. If you want to convince people your favourite voting system is good, briefly explain it whenever you introduce it to a discussion, or link to an explanation!)
Star is pretty good, and its main advantage over fractional votes is simplicity.
But it's two rounds, not one. You can argue that you only enter the data into the computer system once, but that's true of fractional voting too - the computer system does the calculations, and it's not sensible to do fractional voting by moving pieces of paper around at all. If you want to have a paper-based system of counting, you need two rounds of counting anyway with star.
Star's disadvantage is that you can only express preference for the final round between 6 distinct candidates, and if there are enough candidates on the ballot, you start to lose information.
But these aren't important distinctions, neither are your points about ranking. The important points are:
Fractional voting is slightly better at the first two, but star is far, far better at winning and maintaining popular support because you can't truthfully paint it as hard to understand like you can fractional voting and other forms of ranked voting, and you can report how people won in a clear and understandable way. Star is definitely better for public votes in hotly contested elections with low trust levels.
STAR already has a zero rating. And because it a Cardinal system rather than an Ordinal. It's immune to most of the blatant flaws of Ranked Choice.
Really, Ranked Choice is just bad. It's a 200 some year old system that was first designed as a way to highlight the mathematical flaws of certain types of voting systems.
Some dumbasses found it again in the 1800s and thought, eh at least it's better than First Past the Post... Without ever actually testing that claim.
We should not be trying to "save" RCV, we should just abandon it for something that actually works as designed.
What? I didn't say it didn't. I used zero in my example. But even FPTP has zero.
Unless you mean negative voting/voting against, which you only get by introducing a "none of the above" option so that the electorate can vote in such a way that even the most "popular" voted candidate can still lose because of the negative below-"none-of-the-above" votes outnumbering the positive votes - putting someone below "none of the above" in either stars or ranking makes it a vote against them whilst still enabling you to distinguish preferences between candidates who you would prefer were outright rejected even if your candidate can't win.
I'm not trying to save RCV. I'm saying star is better for public elections. Twice. At least.