* You can cap the number of candidates to rank (in other words cap the number of instant run-offs before another election may be needed). Or you cap the number of candidates, or determine a tie-breaker strategy after X rounds.
* What adverse effects are there that are worse than FPTP?
* I think if someone loathes candidate A, doesn't like candidate B but would tolerate them, and REALLY LIKES candidate C, they should be able to express that preference. Approval voting demands they express B and C with equal endorsement. Personally, I think that's discouraging.
> what adverse effects are there that are worse than FPTP.
* The results of close elections become basically random (due to results swinging wildly depending on the order in which the first few candidates are eliminated)
* You have to convey results with a series of graphs rather than a single graph (which confuses voters)
* You need all ballots in-hand to start an official count, so you can't call elections early
* You lose the ability to perform risk-limiting audits, which are the cheapest and easiest way to audit elections
So bad actors can trivially affect RCV elections by destroying or delaying a few mail-in ballots, as well as cast doubt on RCV results as a whole
1) This is not worse than FPTP at all since they are the same in the case of two candidates and FPTP has horrible properties with multiple candiates (the condorcet loser can win the election). Ranked voting can use various methods (condorcet or hybrid) to make sure the winner is the condorcet winner or in the smith set but that adds complexity and no voting method has every desirable property (IRV does not always elect the condorcet winner). Approval voting also can elect the condorcet loser which seems like quite a bad property to me (particularly since this can be affected by strategic voting).
2) Any confusion is due to lack of familiarity and the additional information can be useful beyond determining the winner.
3) This is only true when hand counting a lot of votes (just because you don't want to do it multiple times). Portland just had an election with STV for council seats and IRV for Mayor and these elections were (when possible) called early. You can see the early results here:
4) From a quick Google Scholar search there are risk-limiting audit options for IRV that usually work with few ballots but in occasional worst cases can need a full recount. See Blom et al. Ballot-Polling Risk Limiting Audits for IRV Elections:
I agree with buzzy_hacker that proportional representation is the most important thing to aim for. The main advantage of IRV is that it is easy to understand for single winner elections if you use STV for proprotional representation (which seems like a good choice for the US to me). As far as I know Ireland only has the President (a ceremonial role) individually elected but the US has a bunch of individually elected positions so going directly to the Irish system would be a bigger change.
I'll comment on the last point: I know that multi member districts with proportional representation would be better. Hell, I am closer to convinced that a parliamentary system would be better for us, but I think the people of the US like having a directly elected head of state.
Democracies have evolved in 250 years. We're running old software.
1) Preliminary election-night results (provided by ballot-counting software) will change drastically as new ballots arrive, and it is harder for voters to understand margins. For example, a 2022 miscount in California for a board of education position (noticed weeks after the election) should have elected the candidate who had previously gotten 3rd place.
2) You're saying that a series of graphs is only harder to understand than a single graph due to lack of "familiarity?" This seems disingenuous. With single-graph results, you can show geographical heat maps of voting behavior which is paints a vivid picture of the vote. Heat maps for RCV are misleading and/or require additional context (this shows 1st choices).
3) Hand-counted ballots are a must in my opinion (for audit-ability). And hand counts of RCV are time-consuming so are typically only done once. I guess runaway elections can be called early with RCV, but my point is that it will happen far less often and most election results will be significantly delayed (waiting for all mail-in ballots to start a hand count)
4) I admit I didn't read this paper nor understand it at a cursory glance, but I know this was a drum that approval voting experts beat a while back. Maybe these strategies are new, or have downsides I'm unaware of.
Why do you see proportional representation as the most important thing to aim for? This is the only argument for RCV over approval that holds water, but my mental model for the need for proportional representation is of politics being a 0-sum game where everyone needs to vie for themselves (which I disagree with).
1) Sure it can happen and mistakes happen in any voting system. You can't tell who wins a close election until all the votes are counted, that is pretty much the definition of a close election. FPTP elections are also miscalled at times.
2) Anyone who cares to look at a heat map will need to learn how the new system works then will appreciate the additional information (the ballot could usefully also include approval information as a distinct aspect that doesn't affect results so that it is possible to determine how many voters like their representative, but I would say that approval voting does not communicate that).
3) Why do you think hand counting improves auditability? Being able to hand count does of course but actually doing the main count by hand doesn't seem to me like it would add anything. Not that I am opposed to hand counting, in that case you just wait for the ballots. As issues go it is way down the list from the other properties of the voting system in my opinion.
4) That one was 2018 or 2019 I think and an older one I saw was published in 2013 so yeah it sounds like this research is fairly recent and still being improved.
I don't see politics as a 0-sum game but people absolutely have fundamental differences where politics is the non-violent way to come to a resolution. These differences can be non-obvious if it isn't important to you and proportional representation gives a better chance that an elected representative will be able to understand and care about your issue (which increases the chance it can be solved easily if it isn't a contentious issue even if your favored representative doesn't otherwise have power). To put it another way, if the point of an election is to elect a represetative then proportional representation aims to give everyone representation within the practical limits of the number of representatives. Ideally, this would also make it easier for the representative to explain actual points of contention and tradeoffs (and basic stuff like what they are actually able to affect) to constituents and build general political competence, although I can't say that what I know of countries that use proportional representation is as promising as I would like on that. Ultimately a voting system alone can't do everything, representation isn't the only possible reason to ever have an election, and my personal ideal of how political resolution of differences can or should work involves a number of things quite different from currently common methods. Overall I see FPTP elections as more of a show to distract from behind the scenes power than a system designed to resolve differences peacefully and approval voting seems similar to me (in my opinion one of the most important things a voting method should try to do is limit the effect of strategic voting).
Proportional representation is more important than RCV vs approval voting for single-winner elections. And, in the US, multi-winner RCV (single transferable vote) is the most viable approach to achieve that.
