"Voters in RCV can’t always safely vote 1st choice for their honest favorites
Ranked Choice proponents often make the inaccurate claim that “With RCV, voters can honestly rank candidates in order of choice. Voters know that if their first choice doesn’t win, their vote automatically counts for their next choice instead. This frees voters from worrying about how others will vote and which candidates are more or less likely to win.”
In fact, you can only safely rank candidates honestly in RCV if your favorite either has no chance at all or is a very strong candidate. There is no guarantee that if your favorite is eliminated your next choice will actually be counted."
Basically if the “green” party or whatever gets big enough to oust blue then instead of the green splitting and most if not all of green voters going to blue and blue winning, blue splits and then it’s down to what the blue voters put as secondary. If the blue voters were 50/50 green/red then it’s very possible red wins (which is the worst outcome for a green voter. Most greens would prefer blue over red.)
However, saying all that, I STILL would choose RCV over FPTP. I just wish STAR would get some recognition since RCV actually doesn’t solve all our issues. RCV does have one thing that STAR doesn’t, and that’s that more people know what it is and it has been used in real elections.
If the blue voters were 50/50 green/red then it’s very possible red wins (which is the worst outcome for a green voter. Most greens would prefer blue over red.)
If most greens would prefer blue…then why are they voting for red in the first place?
If you vote for something you don’t want, and you get it, isn’t that your fault? That isn’t a flaw in the voting system.
If what you say is true (most greens prefer blue over red), then it shouldn’t be 50/50 in the first place. It would be 60% blue and 40% red or something like that.
https://www.equal.vote/star_vs_rcv
"Voters in RCV can’t always safely vote 1st choice for their honest favorites Ranked Choice proponents often make the inaccurate claim that “With RCV, voters can honestly rank candidates in order of choice. Voters know that if their first choice doesn’t win, their vote automatically counts for their next choice instead. This frees voters from worrying about how others will vote and which candidates are more or less likely to win.”
In fact, you can only safely rank candidates honestly in RCV if your favorite either has no chance at all or is a very strong candidate. There is no guarantee that if your favorite is eliminated your next choice will actually be counted."
Basically if the “green” party or whatever gets big enough to oust blue then instead of the green splitting and most if not all of green voters going to blue and blue winning, blue splits and then it’s down to what the blue voters put as secondary. If the blue voters were 50/50 green/red then it’s very possible red wins (which is the worst outcome for a green voter. Most greens would prefer blue over red.)
However, saying all that, I STILL would choose RCV over FPTP. I just wish STAR would get some recognition since RCV actually doesn’t solve all our issues. RCV does have one thing that STAR doesn’t, and that’s that more people know what it is and it has been used in real elections.
If most greens would prefer blue…then why are they voting for red in the first place?
If you vote for something you don’t want, and you get it, isn’t that your fault? That isn’t a flaw in the voting system.
If what you say is true (most greens prefer blue over red), then it shouldn’t be 50/50 in the first place. It would be 60% blue and 40% red or something like that.
Thank you!
So STAR is a type of ranked choice, one that makes perfect sense afaict.
Missing details like this got us where we are today 🙃