Ranked-choice voting is on the ballot in New York City

Re:Ranked-choice voting is on the ballot in New York City by macawfish on Tuesday October 22, 2019 @02:16PM (#21326916)

Ranked choice voting systems are still ordinal voting systems, just like first past the post. Which means it's still susceptible to similar kinds of strategic voting as the current system. Although it obscures them from being usable via common sense, I don't think it prevents algorithms with lots of data from exploiting them.

All ordinal systems are susceptible to Arrow's Theorem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoiler_effect

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ranked-choice voting is on the ballot in New York City by lambertsimnel on Tuesday October 22, 2019 @04:24PM (#21328154)

First Past the Post isn't actually an ordinal system. "Ordinal" is simply a synonym of "ranked choice". Arrow's impossibility theorem isn't relevant to FPTP, but that doesn't make it a satisfactory system.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ranked-choice voting is on the ballot in New York City by macawfish on Tuesday October 22, 2019 @04:46PM (#21328332)

Ah, yeah I was wrong about that. (It does reduce to an ordinal system in a two-choice election though!)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ranked-choice voting is on the ballot in New York City by lambertsimnel on Tuesday October 22, 2019 @04:59PM (#21328461)

> (It does reduce to an ordinal system in a two-choice election though!)

Yes. There was recently a two-choice election in the UK for the leader of a party that has ordinal voting as one of its policies. Amusingly, voters still ranked their choices rather than treating the election as FPTP.

[ Parent | on HN ]