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
(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.
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.

Feb 5, 2020 · 12:17 AM UTC

1
Replying to @davidbaron @brianschatz
For a multiwinner council I guess, not based on data, we have the "board of directors" and parliament models, with somewhat different goals. For the latter, I keep guessing, multi-party elections would be better and more representative than 0/1/2 party elections.