• Liz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Eh, no single winner system will change much, and I think Approval Voting does a better job of getting results all the other advanced voting methods agree with while being simpler than RCV and providing more data about losing candidates. Anyway, we’ll have to switch to some kind of proportional method like Sequential Proportional Approval Voting if we want the legislature to have the political diversity of the people. Such a legislature would naturally nominate less extreme judges.

      • Liz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Sorta. It depends on how the second choices are distributed. It also depends on the relative popularity between the three candidates. Spoilers can and do happen under RCV, it’s just they’re confusing. Often times when you explain that a particular race had a spoiler—a losing candidate that changes the winner by running, all else being equal—people will argue that it wasn’t a spoiler for reasons that are either tautological or outside the definition of a spoiler.

        Anyway, RCV and approval often agree on the results, even including who should take 2nd, 3rd, and so on, but approval is simpler and won’t hides second preferences.

        Practically anything is better than “choose one,” but we’re still going to have a two party system unless we allow for more than one winner in any given election.