This is a perceptive review of a ballot choice Seattle voters will make shortly: to continue using plurality voting in city primaries or to adopt either ranked-choice voting (RCV) or approval voting (AV). As Hill points out, there is general agreement that plurality voting is the worst of the three. His review of the pros and cons of both reform systems - thorough, with many examples - may be too detailed and "in the weeds" for some but it is well worth careful reading for those wanting to understand this issue. True, no system is perfect as Nobel economist Kenneth Arrow observed years ago. (His Nobel was based on more than this "astute" observation.) But some voting systems are better than others and, as Hill makes clear, RCV with its long well-documented track record, is unquestionably the best of the three voting systems Seattle voters will consider.
The story of how this issue made it to Seattle's ballot is not a pretty one. And unfortunately some - including a local paper - may have allowed that story to influence their opinion on the two reform methods. Seattle voters, however, will make the decision. And Hill's article here can do much to help those voters make an informed and thoughtful choice. Few can match his long experience and considerable knowledge about voting systems.
My preferred voting method is STAR - Score Then Automatic Runoff. Most voters determine their first or second preferred candidate and their least desired one or two candidates. To record their opinions with RCV requires ranking all available candidates but is easily achieved with STAR. However, I promote RCV because it is better known, superior to plurality voting, and more likely to be implemented.
This is a perceptive review of a ballot choice Seattle voters will make shortly: to continue using plurality voting in city primaries or to adopt either ranked-choice voting (RCV) or approval voting (AV). As Hill points out, there is general agreement that plurality voting is the worst of the three. His review of the pros and cons of both reform systems - thorough, with many examples - may be too detailed and "in the weeds" for some but it is well worth careful reading for those wanting to understand this issue. True, no system is perfect as Nobel economist Kenneth Arrow observed years ago. (His Nobel was based on more than this "astute" observation.) But some voting systems are better than others and, as Hill makes clear, RCV with its long well-documented track record, is unquestionably the best of the three voting systems Seattle voters will consider.
The story of how this issue made it to Seattle's ballot is not a pretty one. And unfortunately some - including a local paper - may have allowed that story to influence their opinion on the two reform methods. Seattle voters, however, will make the decision. And Hill's article here can do much to help those voters make an informed and thoughtful choice. Few can match his long experience and considerable knowledge about voting systems.
Approval voting is simpler and better than this untested "bottoms up" form of ranked voting in every way we can measure.
https://clayshentrup.medium.com/ranked-choice-voting-wrong-for-seattle-e7e08349717e
My preferred voting method is STAR - Score Then Automatic Runoff. Most voters determine their first or second preferred candidate and their least desired one or two candidates. To record their opinions with RCV requires ranking all available candidates but is easily achieved with STAR. However, I promote RCV because it is better known, superior to plurality voting, and more likely to be implemented.