I went down a huge rabbit hole cause of this. I personally like °F over °C but agree it’s arbitrary. So I tried to make a scale that started at the coldest air temp on earth (some day in Antarctica) and went to the hottest day on earth (some day in death valley) and put the coldest day at 0°A and the hottest at 100°A.

Sadly this made a scale that was less precise than I’d like. I like that I can feel the difference between 73°F and 74°F and don’t want to have to use decimals.

So maybe the end points could be only places where people actually live. Well it looks like some people live in Russia around -70°C and some people live in northern Africa around 50°C so if you just take °C and add 60 you can get a -10 to 110 scale where most temps would fall between 0 and 100. Still has the unit difference of °C (which I don’t like) but I like that most temps are between 0 and 100. I also don’t really like negative temperature since it seems wonky.

To “fix” the unit scale you could just multiply everything by 2 so the difference between each full degree is half as much. So temps would be between -20 and 220. °A = 2(°C + 60) °A = 2(°C) + 120

And it turns out I (basically) created the Fahrenheit scale but moved. °F= 1.8(°C) + 32

TL;DR: I’m stupid and this was fun but also a waste of time lol

For me it looks like this:

So the text one appears the same for both of us but the emoji one appears differently which could possibly change its meaning if they were different enough

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.

Ranked choice voting doesn’t get rid of the chance of a spoiler, though. We’d need to go to STAR for that.