• WhoresonWells@lemmy.basedcount.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    I really wish IRV advocates would stop lying about things like:

    since voters can feel free to support them without fear of inadvertently helping a candidate they definitely don’t want to win.

    There is absolutely a spoiler effect in IRV, and it isn’t just theoretical – it happened in one of the elections the article praises as successful.

    Any election system works well with only two choices. IRV improves very slightly on plurality and works well with many choices, provided only two of them matter. But as soon as you get three competitive candidates, exactly the thing many election reformers want to see, really counterintuitive things start to happen.

    • FishFace@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      In practice the spoiler effect is far smaller and harder to take advantage of than it is in FPTP. So unless you think another system has a chance where you are, it makes sense to support a switch to IRV if it’s on the cards.

      • WhoresonWells@lemmy.basedcount.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        I usually promote approval for its simplicity and intuitiveness. STAR also seems respectably decent, and a significant improvement over plurality and IRV.

    • psud@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It would be vanishingly rare to have a tie. If three are left, one will have gotten the fewest votes and their votes would be divided between the two remaining according to the preference of the voter, leading to one of them winning