Ranked choice voting (RCV) — also known as instant runoff voting (IRV) — makes our elections better by allowing voters to rank candidates in order of preference.

RCV is straightforward: Voters have the option to rank candidates in order of preference: first, second, third and so forth. If your first choice doesn’t have a chance to win, your ballot counts for your next choice.

RCV works in all types of elections and supports more representative outcomes. RCV means better choices, better campaigns, and better representation.

Originally Posted By u/Albany50501 At 2025-04-22 02:51:32 PM | Source

  • Sunshine (she/her)@lemmy.caEnglish
    221·
    2 days ago

    The single transferable vote is way better:

    The single transferable vote (STV) or proportional-ranked choice voting (P-RCV) is a multi-winner electoral system in which each voter casts a single vote in the form of a ranked ballot. Voters have the option to rank candidates, and their vote may be transferred according to alternative preferences if their preferred candidate is eliminated or elected with surplus votes, so that their vote is used to elect someone they prefer over others in the running. STV aims to approach proportional representation based on votes cast in the district where it is used, so that each vote is worth about the same as another.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote

      • Lemming6969@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        13 hours ago

        It’s my understanding they all have an issue such as this where choosing a second pick still can spoil your first or such that some other candidate wins which was not the top choice due to ranking spoilers.

        • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
          1·
          12 hours ago

          choosing a second pick still can spoil your first

          Unsure what that means.

          This example shows a violation of the Condorcet winner criterion, and the articles I linked to identify methods that lack this issue, so not all methods have that issue. Some articles on those methods include a nice comparison table of methods over a range of criteria: they vary.

          While ranked voting methods in general have some unavoidable issues, this isn’t one of them.

          • Lemming6969@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            12 hours ago

            Basically exactly what I was alluding to, they all have some issue so it’s not so simple, but not as severe as fptp.

            • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
              1·
              5 hours ago

              I think that defect pointed out is a pretty bad one.

              When we have research, we shouldn’t ignore it. It doesn’t take that long to review readily found information & make an informed decision.

              Changing a voting system is a significant undertaking. We got FPTP without adequate research: I would not like a repeat of that mistake with the first non-garbage idea that pops into people’s heads when we have readily available information to make a better choice.

    • iceonfire1@lemmy.worldEnglish
      14·
      2 days ago

      Instant-runoff voting (IRV) is the single-winner analogue of STV. It is also called single-winner ranked-choice voting and preferential voting

      Seems like STV is an extension of ranked choice voting for the special case of multiple-winner elections.

    • Remember_the_tooth@lemmy.worldEnglish
      141·
      2 days ago

      I like that. I’m still going to support any improvement to the system, though, even if it’s not my preferred solution. Even, if we just got ranked-choice voting, we’d still have more influence on further improvements to the system, like moving to STV.