Is there any solid reason to be against ranked choice voting? I’m honestly asking.
985
1,364
218
14,419
So it may depend on whether you're talking about single-winner or multi-winner elections. Ranked Choice voting can mean many different things depending on how it's counted, even more so once you get to multi-winner elections. (See, say, Schultze STV.)
1
2
Replying to @davidbaron @brianschatz
(By multi-winner elections, I'm talking about things like "elect 5 members of city council".) Most commonly, for single-winner elections, people mean Instant Runoff. It's generally reasonable, but so is Approval Voting. For multi-winner elections, many options... most are bad.

Feb 5, 2020 · 12:15 AM UTC

3
1
Replying to @davidbaron @brianschatz
I've had some experience with multi-winner ranked-choice electing boards in a standards body, using Meek's method en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counti… . People mostly think it's led to more polarization than we had before, though it's possible that would have happened anyway.
1
more replies
Replying to @davidbaron @brianschatz
I, and most of the smart political scientists I know, adore STV and consider multi-winner RCV (PR) their dream US reform. What don't you like about it? nytimes.com/interactive/2018… nytimes.com/interactive/2018…

Opinion | A Congress for Every American (Published 2018)

One way to improve the “People’s House”: elect multiple members per district.

nytimes.com
1
Proportional Representation is not RCV. Each voter just votes for one party, and the parties are represented in proportion to their votes. I'd love to have the legislature be PR, or more likely MMP..
1
more replies
Replying to @davidbaron @brianschatz
IRO is pretty bad for optimizing voter preference. This explanation is a pretty compelling example of why both IRO and "first past the pole" voting are significantly worse than any Condorcet-satisfying system: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condor…
1