Tribal polarization affects Oregon’s policies, leaders, and our own personal relationships, and RCV is a much-needed step towards a deescalation of politics.
Oregon already has RCV in Benton County. It's first election was anti-climatic: a winner in the first round, which is pretty common with RCV. I haven't seen much evidence that RCV helps alternative parties win, at least not in its single-winner form. Look at the history of Australia's elections. A few independent candidates have won, but hardly any alternative party candidates.
That said, RCV is definitely an improvement over single-winner plurality in giving voters more real choice and so allowing them to express their views of candidates more fully. In most cases it avoids the split-vote problem.
I am with the others here in preferring STAR Voting. The idea that voters will bullet-vote, giving 5 stars to their favorite candidate and nothing to any others, is not credible to me. Yes, in general voters are becoming more partisan. But there is a huge number of voters who don't vote or switch between parties based on the candidate. And a huge number who vote for major party candidates while actually preferring some alternative party or independent candidate. These folks would swamp the bullet-voting hard partisan voters, in my opinion. Hardly anyone likes the two major parties! We all just feel stuck with them as the only choices with a chance of winning.
While it was great seeing Yang endorse Garcia as a second-choice vote, I mark that up to Yang’s positive attitude as it was similar to his behavior on the presidential trail. Unfortunately, Garcia did not return the favor, and there were candidates telling their voters specifically to only rank them and no one else. That seems almost expected in our current politics, and we can expect it to continue with RCV because RCV suffers under the same spoiler effect and vote splitting problems our current Choose-one Voting method does, trending toward duopoly rule over time.
Oregon is particularly lucky as the state election code is quite flexible for allowing alternative voting methods. Fortunately, there are dozens to pick from. One of the blessings of modern voting science is the whittling down to two primary recommendations for the US right now: STAR Voting and Approval Voting.
While I’m currently fighting for Approval Voting down in Texas, I believe STAR Voting is the right move for Oregon. STAR stands for Score Then Automatic Runoff, and that’s exactly how it works. You as the voter score all candidates independently from 0 to 5 stars. After adding up the scores for each candidate, the two candidates with the highest scores move onto the automatic runoff as finalists. The finalist you scored higher on your ballot gets your one full vote and the finalist with the most votes wins!
STAR Voting is simpler than RCV while allowing voters to better express themselves on the ballot. While the NYC Board of Elections certainly has its problems, RCV is one of the few voting methods that requires tabulation to be centralized to a single point of failure, presenting major security concerns and maximizing the chances that an under-resourced (or incompetent) election board can screw everything up. STAR Voting allows each precinct to independently report results to the public for anyone to tally. And maybe best of all, STAR Voting is far cheaper to implement than RCV, making it far more palatable for legislators and less burdensome on taxpayers!
I highly encourage that everyone take the time to study up on various voting methods. Voting science is a highly unintuitive field and really requires time to be put in to fully understand the various voting methods out there. Please reach out to me or anyone at the Equal Vote Coalition or the Center for Election Science or the STAR Voting Project or Beyond 2 Parties or the r/EndFPTP subreddit or the electowiki user base if you have any questions!
Thanks so much for the comments! I've learned a lot since engaging with everyone down here in the comments and I'm beginning to lean more towards STAR Voting than I did when I first wrote this piece. I may end up writing something about this debate next month! I really appreciate you giving such a comprehensive response.
NYC voters had the right idea, but they unfortunately were presented with a fairly mediocre reform in instant runoff voting aka "ranked choice voting.". Two simpler and better alternatives are approval voting and STAR voting.
Both are better than the current plurality system, that's for sure. My issue with approval voting is that it's pretty one-dimensional. If you like two candidates, you can't express which candidate you like MORE. You just get to vote for both. This issue is resolved with STAR Voting and RCV Voting. If you want to take a look at my response to Mont Chris Hubbard's comment, I go into detail as to why I think RCV voting is just a little bit better than STAR voting. But it's a pretty long response so I don't blame you if you decide not to. Thanks for reading the piece and leaving a comment!
Upgrading from our current method (Plurality, or First-Past-the-Post) is a priority, but a warning: the version of RCV that New York used (and is most popular in the U.S. and elsewhere), Instant Runoff Voting, is the WORST ranked method, and in fact 1) still requires strategic voting (i.e. not ranking your favorite candidate first, lest your least favorite win), and 2) doesn't count everyone's ballot—about 15% of New York voters, e.g., didn't vote for either two finalists and their ballots were discarded/unconsidered. There are better ways to count ranked ballots, but my preferred method is a score/runoff hybrid called STAR Voting. You should check it out: www.starvoting.us
Really good point. Ranked choice voting still can require strategic voting, but significantly less than any plurality voting system now. I am of course for election reform of any kind, but a big reason I like RCV so much is because it gives third parties a better chance at competing without the spoiler effect, and guarantees that a larger majority of voters get to select the winner. I do understand that when you're choosing between the main three front-runners though, then you will have to be strategic because they are all so popular that neither of them will likely be eliminated, meaning your second choice will never be used. I actually have heard of STAR Voting before and it is honestly a close second pick for me, between RCV and STAR. One issue with STAR voting is that voters can still be encouraged to give all of their stars to a select few, or even one candidate, thus mimicking plurality voting but with five stars instead of one vote. Chances are that voters aren't going to give one or two stars to their least preferred candidates because, obviously they don't want to help those candidates win. So although STAR Voting lets voters give a more comprehensive vote, I find it likely that a lot of voters would condense their stars into just a couple of candidates, especially as the country becomes more and more partisan, which isn't that different from RCV overall. Maybe more studies are needed. Sorry, that was a big response. I think I'm in favor of RCV 55% and STAR Voting 45% so at the end of the day I'd be happy with either. Thanks for taking the time to read the piece and leave a comment!
Folks have different individual definitions of what the "spoiler effect" is, but to me, RCV does NOT eliminate the spoiler effect. RCV only eliminates the spoiler effect when the third party is very weak. This video explains it well, I think (P.S. this is as much for readers of these comments as for you—it's clear you've done plenty of research!) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtKAScORevQ&t=1s
Assuming that Murkowski voters will split between the MAGA Tshibaka and the Democrat Gross, Gross voters should seriously consider ranking Murkowski first (the "lesser of two evils")—if they vote sincerely, Tshibaka will win, but if they vote strategically, Murkowski will win.
The other thing I want to make sure you understand about STAR Voting is that a voter doesn't receive a quota of stars—e.g. you can give five stars to as many candidates as you want, four to as many, etc. (Just from your wording in your comment, I wasn't sure if you knew that.) It's like Approval Voting in that regard, except with more nuance.
One of the other benefits of STAR that I really appreciate is the transparency. The tallying rounds of RCV are not incredibly accessible, and that makes voters suspicious of the method. Also, because it doesn't count the entire ballot, you don't get a good sense of the breadth of support for eliminated candidates. This exit poll experiment from 2012 shows this really well: https://electowiki.org/wiki/2012_Occupy_Wall_Street_polls
Score methods give voters a wonderfully complete sense of candidate support, in a way that ranked methods just can't.
Hi Jared. RCV is still subject to the same spoiler effect as Plurality Voting, just slightly mitigated. It’s a common misconception that RCV eliminates the spoiler effect, unfortunately driven by a continuous simplifying of what it does and how it works over the last few decades. At the end of the day, the vote splitting in both Plurality Voting and RCV mean they both trend toward a polarized two-party system.
STAR Voting actually encourages voters to vote both honestly and expressively. As a review, STAR stands for Score Then Automatic Runoff. After adding up the scores for each candidate, the two highest-scoring candidates become finalists who move onto the automatic runoff, where your one full vote goes to whichever finalist you scored higher on your ballot. What this means is that you are incentivized to draw distinctions between as many pairs of candidates as possible to ensure your vote counts toward a candidate instead of being counted as “No preference” in the automatic runoff. Additionally, under STAR Voting, the chances of strategic voting working are the same as strategic voting backfiring for individual voters, creating no incentive to vote strategically. Both Plurality Voting and RCV have a higher chance of strategic voting working than strategic voting backfiring for individual voters, incentivizing voters over time to vote strategically as they learn the system.
What’s even cooler about STAR Voting is that it was invented in Oregon! It’s far cheaper to implement than RCV in addition to being simpler, allowing for more voter expression, and providing more accurate results. Fortunately, Oregon has election code that perfectly opens the door for STAR Voting to be implemented throughout the state.
I highly recommend taking some more time to check out STAR Voting as it really is the ultimate culmination of modern voting science!
Hi Jared, RCV is progress - but there are better voting methods as compared to RCV. I like Approval voting for its simplicity and STAR voting for being the best in breed voting method.
Here is my letter to my House Whip representative in North Carolina - comparing RCV and STAR Voting:
Oregon already has RCV in Benton County. It's first election was anti-climatic: a winner in the first round, which is pretty common with RCV. I haven't seen much evidence that RCV helps alternative parties win, at least not in its single-winner form. Look at the history of Australia's elections. A few independent candidates have won, but hardly any alternative party candidates.
That said, RCV is definitely an improvement over single-winner plurality in giving voters more real choice and so allowing them to express their views of candidates more fully. In most cases it avoids the split-vote problem.
I am with the others here in preferring STAR Voting. The idea that voters will bullet-vote, giving 5 stars to their favorite candidate and nothing to any others, is not credible to me. Yes, in general voters are becoming more partisan. But there is a huge number of voters who don't vote or switch between parties based on the candidate. And a huge number who vote for major party candidates while actually preferring some alternative party or independent candidate. These folks would swamp the bullet-voting hard partisan voters, in my opinion. Hardly anyone likes the two major parties! We all just feel stuck with them as the only choices with a chance of winning.
While it was great seeing Yang endorse Garcia as a second-choice vote, I mark that up to Yang’s positive attitude as it was similar to his behavior on the presidential trail. Unfortunately, Garcia did not return the favor, and there were candidates telling their voters specifically to only rank them and no one else. That seems almost expected in our current politics, and we can expect it to continue with RCV because RCV suffers under the same spoiler effect and vote splitting problems our current Choose-one Voting method does, trending toward duopoly rule over time.
Oregon is particularly lucky as the state election code is quite flexible for allowing alternative voting methods. Fortunately, there are dozens to pick from. One of the blessings of modern voting science is the whittling down to two primary recommendations for the US right now: STAR Voting and Approval Voting.
While I’m currently fighting for Approval Voting down in Texas, I believe STAR Voting is the right move for Oregon. STAR stands for Score Then Automatic Runoff, and that’s exactly how it works. You as the voter score all candidates independently from 0 to 5 stars. After adding up the scores for each candidate, the two candidates with the highest scores move onto the automatic runoff as finalists. The finalist you scored higher on your ballot gets your one full vote and the finalist with the most votes wins!
STAR Voting is simpler than RCV while allowing voters to better express themselves on the ballot. While the NYC Board of Elections certainly has its problems, RCV is one of the few voting methods that requires tabulation to be centralized to a single point of failure, presenting major security concerns and maximizing the chances that an under-resourced (or incompetent) election board can screw everything up. STAR Voting allows each precinct to independently report results to the public for anyone to tally. And maybe best of all, STAR Voting is far cheaper to implement than RCV, making it far more palatable for legislators and less burdensome on taxpayers!
I highly encourage that everyone take the time to study up on various voting methods. Voting science is a highly unintuitive field and really requires time to be put in to fully understand the various voting methods out there. Please reach out to me or anyone at the Equal Vote Coalition or the Center for Election Science or the STAR Voting Project or Beyond 2 Parties or the r/EndFPTP subreddit or the electowiki user base if you have any questions!
Thanks so much for the comments! I've learned a lot since engaging with everyone down here in the comments and I'm beginning to lean more towards STAR Voting than I did when I first wrote this piece. I may end up writing something about this debate next month! I really appreciate you giving such a comprehensive response.
NYC voters had the right idea, but they unfortunately were presented with a fairly mediocre reform in instant runoff voting aka "ranked choice voting.". Two simpler and better alternatives are approval voting and STAR voting.
https://electionscience.org/library/approval-voting-versus-irv/
https://www.equal.vote/star-vs-rcv
Both are better than the current plurality system, that's for sure. My issue with approval voting is that it's pretty one-dimensional. If you like two candidates, you can't express which candidate you like MORE. You just get to vote for both. This issue is resolved with STAR Voting and RCV Voting. If you want to take a look at my response to Mont Chris Hubbard's comment, I go into detail as to why I think RCV voting is just a little bit better than STAR voting. But it's a pretty long response so I don't blame you if you decide not to. Thanks for reading the piece and leaving a comment!
Upgrading from our current method (Plurality, or First-Past-the-Post) is a priority, but a warning: the version of RCV that New York used (and is most popular in the U.S. and elsewhere), Instant Runoff Voting, is the WORST ranked method, and in fact 1) still requires strategic voting (i.e. not ranking your favorite candidate first, lest your least favorite win), and 2) doesn't count everyone's ballot—about 15% of New York voters, e.g., didn't vote for either two finalists and their ballots were discarded/unconsidered. There are better ways to count ranked ballots, but my preferred method is a score/runoff hybrid called STAR Voting. You should check it out: www.starvoting.us
Really good point. Ranked choice voting still can require strategic voting, but significantly less than any plurality voting system now. I am of course for election reform of any kind, but a big reason I like RCV so much is because it gives third parties a better chance at competing without the spoiler effect, and guarantees that a larger majority of voters get to select the winner. I do understand that when you're choosing between the main three front-runners though, then you will have to be strategic because they are all so popular that neither of them will likely be eliminated, meaning your second choice will never be used. I actually have heard of STAR Voting before and it is honestly a close second pick for me, between RCV and STAR. One issue with STAR voting is that voters can still be encouraged to give all of their stars to a select few, or even one candidate, thus mimicking plurality voting but with five stars instead of one vote. Chances are that voters aren't going to give one or two stars to their least preferred candidates because, obviously they don't want to help those candidates win. So although STAR Voting lets voters give a more comprehensive vote, I find it likely that a lot of voters would condense their stars into just a couple of candidates, especially as the country becomes more and more partisan, which isn't that different from RCV overall. Maybe more studies are needed. Sorry, that was a big response. I think I'm in favor of RCV 55% and STAR Voting 45% so at the end of the day I'd be happy with either. Thanks for taking the time to read the piece and leave a comment!
Folks have different individual definitions of what the "spoiler effect" is, but to me, RCV does NOT eliminate the spoiler effect. RCV only eliminates the spoiler effect when the third party is very weak. This video explains it well, I think (P.S. this is as much for readers of these comments as for you—it's clear you've done plenty of research!) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtKAScORevQ&t=1s
I think the upcoming Alaska Senate election will be an interesting test of this, by the way. Check out the poll here: https://mustreadalaska.com/new-democrat-poll-shows-republican-kelly-tshibaka-beating-murkowski-and-gross-in-ranked-choice-voting-scenario/
Assuming that Murkowski voters will split between the MAGA Tshibaka and the Democrat Gross, Gross voters should seriously consider ranking Murkowski first (the "lesser of two evils")—if they vote sincerely, Tshibaka will win, but if they vote strategically, Murkowski will win.
The other thing I want to make sure you understand about STAR Voting is that a voter doesn't receive a quota of stars—e.g. you can give five stars to as many candidates as you want, four to as many, etc. (Just from your wording in your comment, I wasn't sure if you knew that.) It's like Approval Voting in that regard, except with more nuance.
One of the other benefits of STAR that I really appreciate is the transparency. The tallying rounds of RCV are not incredibly accessible, and that makes voters suspicious of the method. Also, because it doesn't count the entire ballot, you don't get a good sense of the breadth of support for eliminated candidates. This exit poll experiment from 2012 shows this really well: https://electowiki.org/wiki/2012_Occupy_Wall_Street_polls
Score methods give voters a wonderfully complete sense of candidate support, in a way that ranked methods just can't.
Hi Jared. RCV is still subject to the same spoiler effect as Plurality Voting, just slightly mitigated. It’s a common misconception that RCV eliminates the spoiler effect, unfortunately driven by a continuous simplifying of what it does and how it works over the last few decades. At the end of the day, the vote splitting in both Plurality Voting and RCV mean they both trend toward a polarized two-party system.
STAR Voting actually encourages voters to vote both honestly and expressively. As a review, STAR stands for Score Then Automatic Runoff. After adding up the scores for each candidate, the two highest-scoring candidates become finalists who move onto the automatic runoff, where your one full vote goes to whichever finalist you scored higher on your ballot. What this means is that you are incentivized to draw distinctions between as many pairs of candidates as possible to ensure your vote counts toward a candidate instead of being counted as “No preference” in the automatic runoff. Additionally, under STAR Voting, the chances of strategic voting working are the same as strategic voting backfiring for individual voters, creating no incentive to vote strategically. Both Plurality Voting and RCV have a higher chance of strategic voting working than strategic voting backfiring for individual voters, incentivizing voters over time to vote strategically as they learn the system.
What’s even cooler about STAR Voting is that it was invented in Oregon! It’s far cheaper to implement than RCV in addition to being simpler, allowing for more voter expression, and providing more accurate results. Fortunately, Oregon has election code that perfectly opens the door for STAR Voting to be implemented throughout the state.
I highly recommend taking some more time to check out STAR Voting as it really is the ultimate culmination of modern voting science!
Hi Jared, RCV is progress - but there are better voting methods as compared to RCV. I like Approval voting for its simplicity and STAR voting for being the best in breed voting method.
Here is my letter to my House Whip representative in North Carolina - comparing RCV and STAR Voting:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hnLtkfJVzEYDm8ctw5iHAXalfDgAx44ks3ANChcXzjU/edit?usp=sharing
<iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fadam.masiarek.1%2Fposts%2F10225276581924415&show_text=true&width=500" width="500" height="589" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="true" allow="autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; picture-in-picture; web-share"></iframe>