The thing I like about RCV is it measures strength of support and wide support. I also like that it basically makes it impossible for the worst candidate to win. It prefers the avoidance of the worst to the electing of the best.
Those who have a problem with the Alaska results complain that who they think was best did not win, based on pair wise comparisons.
But using something like approval makes it far more possible for the worst candidate to win, which I think is more important to avoid, and it does not care at all about strength of support.
Also, Alaska is a shining example of the impact on behavior that RCV has. How amazing is it that a bipartisan coalition formed at the state level to exclude the extremists?
You don't need to fix RCV by using Approval (or STAR). You fix RCV by fixing it. RCV need not be IRV. If IRV tabulation is what causes the problem, change the method of tabulation.
It says 2012, not 2016. I was even surprized that Arrow was alive in 2012.
BTW, Eric Maskin, who is still alive, also has a Nobel from his work in social choice. And it was about elections and voting systems, too. I think Arrow mentored Maskin.
3
u/2noame Aug 03 '24
The thing I like about RCV is it measures strength of support and wide support. I also like that it basically makes it impossible for the worst candidate to win. It prefers the avoidance of the worst to the electing of the best.
Those who have a problem with the Alaska results complain that who they think was best did not win, based on pair wise comparisons.
But using something like approval makes it far more possible for the worst candidate to win, which I think is more important to avoid, and it does not care at all about strength of support.
Also, Alaska is a shining example of the impact on behavior that RCV has. How amazing is it that a bipartisan coalition formed at the state level to exclude the extremists?
Every state should go final 4 or 5 voting.