they would be better off letting the candidates negotiate the winner when there is no majority. like a micro-parliament choosing their prime minister.
the important idea is the candidates all know how the others are going to vote. each can change their votes until they reach a nash equilibrium. then the votes are finalized. and either a candidate wins with a majority of the votes. or a candidate is removed from contention - but can still vote in subsequent rounds.
Have you looked into the possibility that ranked choice voting may not work very well for many average voters? I worked the polls in November and there was a question on the ballot about ranked-choice voting. I was stationed at a polling place in a majority black and relatively poor area. I had several people (mostly black women) ask me about the ballot question. When I explained it they universally said something to the effect of, “Oh lord, I can hardly keep track of two candidates now. How am I supposed to know what five or six different candidates do or care about?’ I believe they all voted against it.
It seems to me that this is something I have not heard discussed in the context of this issue. All I hear is how logical it is. But what about the less educated voters, or the voters who are really never comfortable about voting in the first place because they feel like the process is very intimidating (increasingly on screens which aren’t universally commonly u by poorer people) and isn’t about them and their welfare?
I agree that there are challenges to implementing ranked-choice voting. For this reason I discuss approval voting, which can bring many of the same benefits. At the Electoral Innovation Lab we are testing whether it can do the job of RCV, but without ranking.
This was a really helpful point to bring up, Jon, and I think that your experience with those voters helps explain why ranked-choice voting hasn't done particularly well on the ballot over the years. It's a reform that resonates with a handful of folks (myself included), but probably not the broader electorate.
definitely time to change the rules.
they would be better off letting the candidates negotiate the winner when there is no majority. like a micro-parliament choosing their prime minister.
the important idea is the candidates all know how the others are going to vote. each can change their votes until they reach a nash equilibrium. then the votes are finalized. and either a candidate wins with a majority of the votes. or a candidate is removed from contention - but can still vote in subsequent rounds.
this is a VERY rough draft of what i'm proposing.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GL__lJMoX5Cku35h4BLXhJHQ_NxuzGaA5tN-OORVdmw/edit?tab=t.0
Have you looked into the possibility that ranked choice voting may not work very well for many average voters? I worked the polls in November and there was a question on the ballot about ranked-choice voting. I was stationed at a polling place in a majority black and relatively poor area. I had several people (mostly black women) ask me about the ballot question. When I explained it they universally said something to the effect of, “Oh lord, I can hardly keep track of two candidates now. How am I supposed to know what five or six different candidates do or care about?’ I believe they all voted against it.
It seems to me that this is something I have not heard discussed in the context of this issue. All I hear is how logical it is. But what about the less educated voters, or the voters who are really never comfortable about voting in the first place because they feel like the process is very intimidating (increasingly on screens which aren’t universally commonly u by poorer people) and isn’t about them and their welfare?
I agree that there are challenges to implementing ranked-choice voting. For this reason I discuss approval voting, which can bring many of the same benefits. At the Electoral Innovation Lab we are testing whether it can do the job of RCV, but without ranking.
approval voting is attractive.
however, it is the *most* demanding system on the voter.
they essentially have to score each candidate between 1.0 for their favorite and 0.0 for the least.
then they have to use some sort of process to decide if they should approve a middle candidate or not.
the strategy for that decision is complex. it depends on the details of the particular contest.
however, it is easy to implement on available voting machines. and most of the time does much better than irv.
This was a really helpful point to bring up, Jon, and I think that your experience with those voters helps explain why ranked-choice voting hasn't done particularly well on the ballot over the years. It's a reform that resonates with a handful of folks (myself included), but probably not the broader electorate.