I'm glad that voting reform is getting attention. Our bad voting methods do lead to a dysfunctional two-party system. But the solution they propose (an open primary with a top-five ranked-choice run-off) is not a great choice. https://twitter.com/fairvote/status/1301547956680695809
People who study voting methods have run simulations and computer models to study which voting methods are best at choosing winners that represent voters. Ranked Choice voting is barely better than plurality. https://www.starvoting.us/tags/voter_satisfaction_efficiency
Experts have studied how to choose better elections. The freakenomics folks and the authors of "the politics industry" did not seem to glance at the existing literature on voting methods. STAR voting and Approval voting are better and simpler.
For those who are unfamiliar:
STAR voting for voters is extremely simple: you get your ballot and rate each candidate from 0-5, just like you are giving them an Amazon review
Voting officials count all the scores and find the two finalists who have the most support. your final vote goes to whichever of the two finalists that you scored higher.
For example, if Benrie and Warren are the finalists and you gave warren 5 stars and bernie 3, warren gets your vote
Approval voting is even simpler. You vote for as many candidates as you would like. The best strategy here is to vote for your favorite, if they do not have a good chance of winning, also vote for the frontrunner you like best, and anyone you like more than that front runner
Versions of approval voting have been used to select popes, to select rulers in ancient sparta, was briefly used to elect members of the legislature in modern Greece, has been used in Fargo North Dakota and is on the ballot in St. Louis.
You can follow @bentheriver.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: