Ok so here's the issue I have with your article. It makes a bunch of assumptions that I dont think are valid.
1. That people are stupid. Basically people are too stupid to vote for the candidate they actually prefer and vote for the more "extreme" candidate.
I don’t read the piece that way.
However, it is obviously true that some people are stupid. So complicating a simple ballot with this additional gibberish could confuse them quite a bit.
2. That moderate candidates inherently are better than "extreme" ones. Why?
I don’t believe that’s what it says either.
Instead, f the artificial process of voting itself leads to some unwarranted advantage to an extreme candidate, it is the awarding of an unjust preference that is the problem.
Im not sure how ranked choice necessarily results in more extreme candidates than having multiple elections where candidates are excluded when they are at the bottom of the vote getting pile. I would guess that people are far more likely to vote for the more "party line" candidate in that type of election than a ranked choice system for fear of their vote "not counting". What happens in the current system is that far less people vote in the subsequent elections allowing more extreme candidates to be elected.
In the example given in the article the "moderate candidate" would have been excluded from the run-off between Palin and Peltola and Alaska would have likely ended up with Peltola anyway.
As I said before, there are pros and cons.
And some of the arguments either way come with their own problems. But let’s simplify it. Over simplify it.
Three candidates. A, B and C. Each one votes for himself and don’t use the rank voting alternative option at all.
Now the general voters also weigh in. There are three non-candidates eligible voters and each shows up at the polling station. They are voters “”1,” “2” and “3.”
“1” votes for A but casts the alternative vote for C.
“2” votes for B but casts the alternative vote for C.
“3” votes for C but also chooses
not to cast any alternative vote.
The tally of the votes doesn’t use Dominion
.
Votes for A = two votes.
Votes for B = two votes.
Votes for C = two votes.
Oh oh. No one has the majority. However, by now using the alternative ranking, we see that
A has no alternative votes.
B has no alternative votes. But …
C does have some. He has the alternative vote of both A and B.
C wins the election.
Did the voters truly want C? Nope. In fact, all together A and B combined have 4 votes. But C got only 4, also. Yet C wins.
Why?
