Peter Drake, he/him, LFHCfS 🔥 on Nostr: sdgathman npub1m9p20…xxnr9 npub1kpwlx…xxzz4 npub1nqzzv…7838y RCV isn't ...
sdgathman (npub1xq8…9xvs) npub1m9p200m97y5allregssl530da6xsxkqa60xphcl3mqwsu8zj8ququxxnr9 (npub1m9p…xnr9) npub1kpwlxpzkxfmuxjmzc2wp3rf9vjg0sgydmlhsnrgqr3maf59h86qqdxxzz4 (npub1kpw…xzz4) npub1nqzzvvr02rm8eqqamu6u403a584ljdtuh0uwdqzdl5maxjn880nss7838y (npub1nqz…838y) RCV isn't impractical, and in fact has been implemented in several places including Alaska and Maine.
I like it because it would allow us to answer a question that can't be answered under plurality: did your third party lose because (a) a large number support you but were afraid to waste their votes, or (b) your views are only held by a small number of voters.
If by "voting for more than 1" you mean approval voting, I'd be okay with that, too. Also STAR voting. Any are better than plurality, but RCV seems to have the most momentum.
I like it because it would allow us to answer a question that can't be answered under plurality: did your third party lose because (a) a large number support you but were afraid to waste their votes, or (b) your views are only held by a small number of voters.
If by "voting for more than 1" you mean approval voting, I'd be okay with that, too. Also STAR voting. Any are better than plurality, but RCV seems to have the most momentum.