STAR already has a zero rating. And because it a Cardinal system rather than an Ordinal. It’s immune to most of the blatant flaws of Ranked Choice.
Really, Ranked Choice is just bad. It’s a 200 some year old system that was first designed as a way to highlight the mathematical flaws of certain types of voting systems.
Some dumbasses found it again in the 1800s and thought, eh at least it’s better than First Past the Post… Without ever actually testing that claim.
We should not be trying to “save” RCV, we should just abandon it for something that actually works as designed.
What? I didn’t say it didn’t. I used zero in my example. But even FPTP has zero.
Unless you mean negative voting/voting against, which you only get by introducing a “none of the above” option so that the electorate can vote in such a way that even the most “popular” voted candidate can still lose because of the negative below-“none-of-the-above” votes outnumbering the positive votes - putting someone below “none of the above” in either stars or ranking makes it a vote against them whilst still enabling you to distinguish preferences between candidates who you would prefer were outright rejected even if your candidate can’t win.
We should not be trying to “save” RCV
I’m not trying to save RCV. I’m saying star is better for public elections. Twice. At least.
STAR already has a zero rating. And because it a Cardinal system rather than an Ordinal. It’s immune to most of the blatant flaws of Ranked Choice.
Really, Ranked Choice is just bad. It’s a 200 some year old system that was first designed as a way to highlight the mathematical flaws of certain types of voting systems.
Some dumbasses found it again in the 1800s and thought, eh at least it’s better than First Past the Post… Without ever actually testing that claim.
We should not be trying to “save” RCV, we should just abandon it for something that actually works as designed.
What? I didn’t say it didn’t. I used zero in my example. But even FPTP has zero.
Unless you mean negative voting/voting against, which you only get by introducing a “none of the above” option so that the electorate can vote in such a way that even the most “popular” voted candidate can still lose because of the negative below-“none-of-the-above” votes outnumbering the positive votes - putting someone below “none of the above” in either stars or ranking makes it a vote against them whilst still enabling you to distinguish preferences between candidates who you would prefer were outright rejected even if your candidate can’t win.
I’m not trying to save RCV. I’m saying star is better for public elections. Twice. At least.