This article is an excellent example of how poorly informed authors (and voters) can get Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) wrong.
The basic premise of RCV is that by listing second, third and more (if needed) choices, your vote will go a candidate that is more acceptable to you than others. Of course if only one candidate is acceptable to you and that candidate is at the bottom of a round, you have left the decision to the other voters.
The author declares such ballots as "exhausted" or "thrown out" when in fact they have become blank ballots, or could be called 2nd, 3rd or 4th round abstentions.
Less well known is that RCV gives voters the means to effectively vote AGAINST a candidate particularly unacceptable to them simply by ranking other candidates above.
1 comment
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 16.3 ms ] threadThe basic premise of RCV is that by listing second, third and more (if needed) choices, your vote will go a candidate that is more acceptable to you than others. Of course if only one candidate is acceptable to you and that candidate is at the bottom of a round, you have left the decision to the other voters.
The author declares such ballots as "exhausted" or "thrown out" when in fact they have become blank ballots, or could be called 2nd, 3rd or 4th round abstentions.
Less well known is that RCV gives voters the means to effectively vote AGAINST a candidate particularly unacceptable to them simply by ranking other candidates above.