Another Argument Against Instant Runoff Voting
Over at Cato Unbound, Jason Sorens gives his reasons for opposing Instant Runoff Voting, recommending instead Approval Voting. I'll have to admit I had a hard time following his explanation, especially when he demonstrated numbers. Maybe some of you could do better.
Sorens is founder of the Free State Project. I'm surprised to see him associated with Cato, which I'm assuming he would be if they're publishing his stuff.
posted by Fred Mangels @ 1:45 PM
2 comments
2 Comments:
Interesting.
HOJ believes the system of federal voting now is just fine, fair, reasonable and well weighted versus history.
What this thread topic is based upon is ranked choice, et al.
Logic implies that if ya can't just pick the best one of the lot, something is really bad with the candidates.
If ranked choice, it is easy:
100 people run......rank 1 through 100(top down, first to last, best to worst, etc.....for dummies)
#1 = 100 points
#2 = 99 ....
#3 = 98 ....
.
.
.
#99 =2 points
#100=1 point
After every vote has been categorized for each candidate based on the total sums per each ranked point gained, the winner is the most points overall.
Trump #100 @ 10 votes times 1 point per vote = sub total of ten ballots
Trump #1 @ 66 votes = 6,600 ballots
And so on to complete all rank levels, votes for, points allotted and overall ballots sum totaled.
Then again, how ridiculously crazy will it be to have so many candidates that it just deteriorates the electorate???
So.... my reading of that argument is "we're intentionally exploiting flaws in the current system, and if you fix the system, we won't be able to do that anymore, so it's bad!"
That sounds like an argument FOR it, to me.
Post a Comment
<< Home