On Election Day, Coloradans will decide whether to overhaul the state-wide election system or maintain the status quo. The result will impact state elections for years to come.
If you don’t have a strong preference now, I would urge you to look deeper into the pros and cons of potential alternatives. RCV carries some very glaring weaknesses that make it only marginally better than FPTP, including the lack of a guarantee of a Condorcet winner (it shares this property with FPTP) and the introduction of perversity (which FPTP does not suffer from).
I’m never for letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, and there is no truly “perfect” voting system, but RCV seems like such a minor improvement that I believe effort would be better spent on something with a bit more impact.
I’ve looked into this before, and most of the cases where rcv fails seem relatively unlikely in real elections. I’d be happy with Star, IRV, RCV/IRV ballots with the runoff process modified to be a Condorcet method, approval. So I’ll support any initiative to change to any of these systems.
Saying that IRV has glaring problems that make it not much better than fptp seems unsubstantiated.
For any voting system you propose, there are going to be properties you want that it fails, but like, some of those seem more important in real elections than others most of the time, and IRV seems reasonable in most cases.
Yeah, I really don’t understand this “it’s only 150% better than FPTP, it is HORROR, we need to avoid” point of view.
If there’s something else better, then great. Advocate for that. In the meantime please don’t try to stop us switching from FPTP to RCV. Some of their other points, that experimenting with thing 1 one time will lead to not wanting to experiment with thing 2 a different time, just seem nutty to me.
If you don’t have a strong preference now, I would urge you to look deeper into the pros and cons of potential alternatives. RCV carries some very glaring weaknesses that make it only marginally better than FPTP, including the lack of a guarantee of a Condorcet winner (it shares this property with FPTP) and the introduction of perversity (which FPTP does not suffer from).
I’m never for letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, and there is no truly “perfect” voting system, but RCV seems like such a minor improvement that I believe effort would be better spent on something with a bit more impact.
I’ve looked into this before, and most of the cases where rcv fails seem relatively unlikely in real elections. I’d be happy with Star, IRV, RCV/IRV ballots with the runoff process modified to be a Condorcet method, approval. So I’ll support any initiative to change to any of these systems.
Saying that IRV has glaring problems that make it not much better than fptp seems unsubstantiated.
For any voting system you propose, there are going to be properties you want that it fails, but like, some of those seem more important in real elections than others most of the time, and IRV seems reasonable in most cases.
Am I missing something big?
Yeah, I really don’t understand this “it’s only 150% better than FPTP, it is HORROR, we need to avoid” point of view.
If there’s something else better, then great. Advocate for that. In the meantime please don’t try to stop us switching from FPTP to RCV. Some of their other points, that experimenting with thing 1 one time will lead to not wanting to experiment with thing 2 a different time, just seem nutty to me.