Tbh, at that point you can just drop the ranked choice and go with a regular proportional system.
It’s just trying to shoehorn proportionality into ranked choice.
Another option is to send at least one representative from each party and weight their voting power based on the popular vote. But I haven’t seen that implemented anywhere so far.
I don’t think you understand the Australian Senate voting system or Tasmanian lower house or the MMP of Scotland, UK, DE.
They all have ranked choice but are tweaked to be proportional too.
MMP makes it proportional by also giving you a party vote which determines what proportion of seats that party should hold so that you don’t get a situation like you described in Australia’s last election. Better to watch a 2 minute video on it.
MMP is the most accurate/fair proportional system but more complex.
I know MMP, I live in Austria, you know, right next to Germany, and my wife’s from there. MMP is something different than instant runoff, because it’s primarily a proportional voting system with a ranked choice component tacked onto it.
What I meant is that having 5 candidates decided by ranked choice without the proportional part of MMP hardly helps, especially if these candidates just feed into an otherwise winner-takes-it-all system.
Unfortunately Americans are not reading this thread :(
So MMP solves the problem, yes?
Ranked choice with a single member is better than FPTP.
5 candidates is closer to proportional but it is flawed because it is “low resolution”.
One could theoretically have a system to vote for hundreds/all seats for finer resolution but MMP is a tried and tested way to achieve the same.
We have come full circle to my initial comment…
Ranked choice allows for coalitions like in AU.
Maybe you mean Multi Member Proportional voting like NZ and DE. That is the best system but complicated. US cannot even deal with converting to metric so MMP would result in exploding heads.
Tbh, at that point you can just drop the ranked choice and go with a regular proportional system.
It’s just trying to shoehorn proportionality into ranked choice.
Another option is to send at least one representative from each party and weight their voting power based on the popular vote. But I haven’t seen that implemented anywhere so far.
I don’t think you understand the Australian Senate voting system or Tasmanian lower house or the MMP of Scotland, UK, DE.
They all have ranked choice but are tweaked to be proportional too.
MMP makes it proportional by also giving you a party vote which determines what proportion of seats that party should hold so that you don’t get a situation like you described in Australia’s last election. Better to watch a 2 minute video on it.
MMP is the most accurate/fair proportional system but more complex.
I know MMP, I live in Austria, you know, right next to Germany, and my wife’s from there. MMP is something different than instant runoff, because it’s primarily a proportional voting system with a ranked choice component tacked onto it.
What I meant is that having 5 candidates decided by ranked choice without the proportional part of MMP hardly helps, especially if these candidates just feed into an otherwise winner-takes-it-all system.
Unfortunately Americans are not reading this thread :(
So MMP solves the problem, yes?
Ranked choice with a single member is better than FPTP.
5 candidates is closer to proportional but it is flawed because it is “low resolution”.
One could theoretically have a system to vote for hundreds/all seats for finer resolution but MMP is a tried and tested way to achieve the same.
We have come full circle to my initial comment…