In the room where it happened: here’s where the terms "instant runoff voting" and "ranked choice voting" come from (and why they are the exact same method)
RCV stands for Ranked-Choice Voting. IRV stands for Instant-Runoff Voting, a particular *form* of Ranked-Choice Voting.
It *is* dishonest for STAR advocates to call STAR Voting "Instant-Runoff Voting", even though there is actually an instant runoff after the first round, using Score Voting.
Now, there are other IRVs than what is most commonly used. There is also Top-Two Runoff IRV which also has only two rounds. First round to see how candidates line up with first-choice votes and a second round involving only the two candidates with the most first-choice votes, if there was no 50%+ majority in the first place. This is most similar to the delayed runoff that many, many jurisdictions use now. (But it's not the same, of course, because a delayed runoff requires voters to come to the polls and vote a second-time. TTR-IRV uses a ranked ballot to avoid the second election.)
It is also dishonest for you, Rob, and FairVote to insist that the term "Ranked-Choice Voting" applies only to the Hare method. Bucklin Voting is Ranked-Choice Voting. So is Condorcet RCV. Even Borda is RCV, even though it is closer to Score Voting (it's like Score Voting with a restriction that skipped rankings are either not allowed or are ignored).
With the exception of Borda, the *meaning* of the ballot is exactly the same. If a voter ranks Candidate A higher than Candidate B, that simply means that, if it were a two-candidate race between A and B, this voter is voting for A and their vote counts as one vote. It doesn't matter how many levels A is ranked higher than B. It's still One-Person-One-Vote. Borda and Score methods are not.
Ranked-Choice Voting does *not* mean that the tabulation method must use the Hare method of the Single-Transferable Vote. Ranked ballots can be tabulated using a different method (Borda, Condorcet, Bucklin) and it's *still* Ranked-Choice Voting.
You FairVote people are so dishonest *and* greedy. You demand that the semantics adhere to *only* what YOU say the semantics are and you do that to try to control the debate and prevent the truth from being told.
Robert, you can keep calling an apple an orange if you want, but that doesn't mean you are right. In fact "ranked choice voting" DOES mean that the tabulation method must use (as you put it) "the Hare method of the Single-Transferable Vote." And yes, you are correct that "ranked ballots can be tabulated using a different method (Borda, Condorcet, Bucklin)" but that is NOT ranked choice voting.
Or look at it this way -- if you read my whole article, then you know that the name "ranked choice voting" did not even exist before the year 1999. It was invented by the San Francisco city attorney's office as a parallel name for instant runoff voting, which we at the Center for Voting and Democracy (now FairVote) had invented and promoted since the mid-1990s. The new RCV name for IRV was then adopted by the San Francisco director of elections during the process of implementing the first usage of this specific tabulation method in 2004 (which you are calling "the Hare method of the Single-Transferable Vote," though for single-winner elections in the case of SF).
Feeling we had no choice in the matter, we at FairVote then started using that "ranked choice voting" name as well for the method that we previously had called instant runoff voting, and which you have ID'ed as "the Hare method of the Single-Transferable Vote" for single-winner elections.
Since FairVote in essence invented and promoted (with the assistance of the SF city atty office and department of elections) these two names IRV and RCV, which had never been used before to describe "the Hare method of the Single-Transferable Vote" for single-winner elections or any other method, with ranked ballots or otherwise, why would you now try to adopt those names for other methods? What is your motivation? I don't get it. Especially since (as my article and one of my comments above show) doing so has already caused confusion and actually hurt our chances to pass reform, which you say you are in favor of?
Again, that doesn’t mean that for other ranked ballot systems that you can’t come up with a new name that has the word “rank” in it in some fashion, such as “ranked pairs” as Charles Munger has adopted for his Condorcet method. Or how about "ranked voting" or "ranked ballots voting"? But if as an advocate you are being ethical, respectful and sincere, I believe you will not use the words “ranked choice voting” or "ranked choice" together, or the words “instant runoff voting” or "instant runoff" together, because those terms have a very specific history and use that did not even exist before the mid-1990s.
If we at CVD/FairVote did not start using and promoting those terms, you would not ever have even heard of them. And using the terms RCV or IRV for other ranked ballot systems that are not "the Hare method of the Single-Transferable Vote" has already contributed to much confusion. So why would you continue to do that? Why not find other names, or just use the names they already have (Borda, pair-wise, Bucklin, Condorcet etc) and stop confusing people?
That's not a rhetorical question, I am sincerely interested in your answer.
>>Robert, you can keep calling an apple an orange if you want,<<
No. What you're saying is that the orange is fruit and the apple is not. The umbrella term is "fruit". Underneath the umbrella are apples and oranges and pears and strawberries. But you insist that only the orange is under the umbrella. It's a falsehood and it's greedy.
>> but that doesn't mean you are right.<<
No. What makes me right is taxonomy and the meanings of words.
>> In fact "ranked choice voting" DOES mean that the tabulation method must use (as you put it) "the Hare method of the Single-Transferable Vote." <<
No. It's what *you're* saying. It's false and it's greedy and I am calling it out.
The Way Back Machine spells this out. In 2010 it was "IRV America" at FairVote. Then repeals at Burlington VT, Pierce County WA, Cary NC, Aspen CO and some other places that I can't remember happened. "IRV" was losing cachet as a label and FairVote desperately needed to make their product look better. Bingo! New, Improved IRV and we'll call it "RCV". (This is circa 2014/2015.)
Problem is that it's exactly the same failed product. No improvement at all, but it projects the image that it's something different, something better. Not the same as that old, failed IRV. In Burlington 2020, that deception succeeded at fooling a lot of people, despite my efforts. There were literally promoters in Burlington, that were responding to concerns that people remembered from 2009, saying "Oh, no! This is RCV, not IRV."
Just like Trumpers you guys think that you can control the conversation by controlling the lexicography .
Lie #1: RCV (but you're talking about IRV) guarantees that the winner has a majority of voter support. A specific quote from Better Ballot Vermont: "To win an RCV election a candidate *must* get over 50% of the vote." There are plenty of counter examples, but your organization conveniently and dishonestly ignore them.
Lie #2: RCV (but you're talking about IRV) prevents the "Spoiler Effect". When counter examples are shown that demonstrate the falsehood of that claim, you try to redefine what a spoiler is. It's dishonest.
Lie #3: (This comes from RCVRC.) "Does ranked-choice voting impact how long it takes to know who won the election? NO! Ranked-choice voting elections can be tabulated as quickly as a few minutes using round-by-round counting software." (Again they mean IRV.) That's also dishonest. Tell that to the SoS of Maine or Alaska. The issue is not about how fast computers are (they're fast). The issue is the unavoidable centralized tabulation of the vote and the time it takes to securely transport ballot data to the central tabulation facility. The shame is that there *are* RCV methods that are precinct summable and are tabulated locally but IRV is not one of them.
Lie #4: RCV (but you mean IRV) solves the vote-splitting problem. Yeah, like it did in August 2022 with the GOP vote split between Sarah Palin and Nick Begich.
Lie #5: If your vote cannot get your favorite candidate elected, then your second-choice vote is counted instead. Tell that to the Kurt Wright voters in 2009 or the Sarah Palin voters in August 2022. If your candidate is the loser in the IRV final round, your second choice vote is *never* counted. Usually that doesn't make a difference in the outcome of the election, but it *did* in 2009 and 2022.
Lie #6: Vote your hopes not your fears. You can vote for the candidate you really want without fear of "wasting your vote" and helping elect the candidate you loathe. Again, disproven in 2009 and August 2022.
And finally the lie in this opinion piece: Whenever Ranked-Choice Voting is used, there is no other method to count the ballots and determine who the winner is except the Hare method. There simply is no other method for voters and policy makers to consider. Of course, if you're going to adopt Ranked-Choice Voting and use ranked ballots to solve these problems we see with First-Past-The-Post, the only method to use to count the ballots is round-by-round Instant-Runoff and transferring the votes. <-- All that is a lie. And the intent of the lie is to deceive people. To dumb them down. And to sell your product.
You guys keep lying about RCV being the best thing since sliced bread and your lies make the rest of us voting reform activists look bad. That is precisely what you're doing.
Meredith Sumpter, President and CEO of FairVote is quoted saying “ RCV [in the form of IRV] fixes the ‘spoiler problem’ and ensures winning candidates represent the majority of voters”
Two lies in one sentence.
I could tell you a personal lie made by Deb Otis about me. (But I won't for now.)
The problem is that you guys have evolved from voting reform advocates to salesmen. You just gotta sell the product, but you refuse to improve the product or fix bugs in it. My daughter sorta spelled that out: It's like FPTP is Democracy 1.0. Then IRV comes out: Democracy 2.0, but you refuse to recognize demonstrated bugs and issue release version 2.1 . Instead, you just repackage it with the label "RCV" that you have appropriated from the umbrella term, rather than fix bugs and release the fixed version. You're unable to admit to the bugs in the product that you're selling. Nor that the bugs can be fixed (at least a little better).
I am not interested in debating the pros and cons of various methods with you. We are not going to agree. I am more concerned that you continue to misrepresent the history of the usage of the terms IRV and RCV. The name change had nothing to do with (as you wrote) "IRV was losing cachet as a label and FairVote desperately needed to make their product look better. Bingo! New, Improved IRV and we'll call it "RCV". (This is circa 2014/2015.)". That is not accurate, not even close. In the interest of truth and honesty, you owe it to this discussion to go back and read my article. Summarizing: The term RCV was invented by the city attorney in San Francisco in 1999 as an alternative name for IRV (for the reasons I detailed in my article). Then after IRV/RCV was passed by the SF voters on the March 2002 ballot, the SF director of elections made the switch to calling it RCV for the first implementation in Nov 2004 (for the reasons I detailed in my article). We the advocates (I ran the campaign in SF) didn't feel we had much choice but to go along. Both names have continued to be used since then for the SAME method, depending on the city or state and the specific usage i.e. instant runoff voting when replacing a two round runoff, RCV in other situations. In fact, the city of Redondo Beach is about to have its first election and there it is known as IRV, not RCV (replacing a two-round runoff).
That is a matter of historical fact. I have told this to you now at least three times. I documented it extensively in my article. If you continue with your own made up history, that will just spread more confusion based on your mis- and disinformation. Or maybe that is in fact your goal, when all is said and done, to spread confusion over the names IRV and RCV?
Strange to hear that RCV was born in the late 1990s when we've had proportional RCV in Cambridge, MA since the 1930s, and, of course, it wasn't invented at that time...or even in the U.S. at all.
"In 1939, the City of Cambridge adopted a city charter electing nine City Councilors and six School Committee members at-large using proportional RCV. With Cambridge's system, a candidate must win a certain proportion of the votes to be elected. This winning fraction of the votes is known as the threshold, or "quota," to win the election."
Anyhow, I don't think you were actually "in the room" in 1939.
Walter -- my article makes it clear that the TERM ranked choice voting (RCV) is what was born in the late 1990s, not the METHOD that it is used as the name for. As the article clearly says, that METHOD was used for 100 years in Australia, used in Ireland to elect its president, used in a number of private orgs, and went by other names, i.e. majority preferential voting, in some cases just preferential voting and alternative vote.
And Cambridge in 1939 most certainly did not use the TERM proportional RCV in 1939, because that term had not yet been invented, it too was invented by FairVote around 2016 or so, even as the METHOD Cambridge uses, also known as single transferable vote, and for a short time choice voting, preference voting and full representation voting (those three also names that FairVote invented/adopted before PRCV).
I realize the article is on the long side, because I was documenting the history of these terms' usage, but it would appear that either you did not read the entire article or else you missed the clear distinction between the TERMS for RCV and IRV and when they first were used by FairVote (in its earlier Center for Voting and Democracy phase) before anyone else, and the METHODS themselves which have been around for many years.
And regardless, by the time we at the Center for Voting and Democracy (now FairVote) launched the modern movement for electoral system reform in the early 90s, NOBODY was using "instant runoff," neither among academics, reformers or elected officials. That term did not exist, for all intents and purposes. Until we at CVD started using it, that is a matter of historical fact.
I see. Is it your view that the terms "instant runoff" and "ranked choice" are better than "preferential voting" or any of the other terms used for this method since the 1870s?
Walter, yes, those terms IRV and RCV have been better in terms of actually passing and sustaining electoral system reform, either by getting a majority of voters to adopt it via a ballot measure or getting a majority of legislators to adopt it. Those terms, each in their own way, are more descriptive so have helped the public, media, elected official etc. to have a better sense of what the reform actually does without needing a long explanation. At the Center for Voting and Democracy (and now FairVote) we tried using the term preferential voting for a number of years, and that eventually morphed into choice voting, fair representation voting, and finally proportional ranked choice voting.
In fact, I ran the campaign for STV in San Francisco in 1996 and we called it preference voting. Also on the ballot was whether to move to district elections or retain the then-current plurality at-large system for the SF Board of Supervisors (the city council). Preference voting lost with 44% of the vote. As my article says, Minneapolis also used preference voting for its ballot measure in 2006 for mostly single-winner elections for mayor, city council etc. (though it also included using STV for park board elections, but that was not a feature of the campaign). But by the time of its first implementation in 2009, Minneapolis had changed the name to “ranked choice voting” because it is more descriptive of what the voter has to do.
Thanks for your thoughts Tyler. In general conversations, your explanation works well. Where matters get more complicated is when you get to a point of writing legislation, or interpreting existing law for implementation, of the specific electoral system. At that point definitions and names matter a great deal. For example, you can’t have a passed law, approved by 70% of voters, that calls for “instant runoff voting” and instead have an attempt to implement STAR voting instead. That’s what happened recently in Redondo Beach. The STAR proponents tried to say “we rank candidates too, and our system has a similar runoff.” It created mass confusion, allowing the anti-reformers to nearly stop the implementation of IRV in its tracks.
A similar situation happened a couple of years ago in San Diego, where an attempt to pass single-winner ranked choice voting was detoured into an effort to instead pass Condorcet voting. Again, the usurpers tried to say “our system has rankings too, it is 'ranked choice' too.” The San Diego effort wasted precious time for many months sorting that out, and in the end the effort died.
So these names and definitions actually matter, and if too much fuzziness creeps into their use during the advocacy, it will create confusion that undermines the public’s understanding of what IRV/RCV is.
In my article, I explained where the exact terms “instant runoff voting” and “ranked choice voting” came from -- from those of us at the Center for Voting and Democracy (now FairVote). There was no prior use of those terms before we started using them (believe me, we researched it). Those particular names describe the exact same system. There is no other system of instant runoff voting other than the one that FairVote/Center for Voting and Democracy has advocated for. And there is no other system of ranked choice voting other than the one that FairVote/Center for Voting and Democracy has advocated for. And IRV and RCV are the exact same thing.
Certainly that doesn’t mean that for other ranked ballot systems out there they can’t come up with a new name that has the word “rank” in it in some fashion, such as “ranked pairs” as Charles Munger has adopted for his Condorcet method. But if those advocates are being ethical, respectful and sincere, they will not use the words “ranked choice voting” or "ranked choice" together, or the words “instant runoff voting” or "instant runoff" together because it will contribute to confusion.
See Greg Dennis’s post in this discussion, in which he provides some excellent examples of how advocates could misuse the name “approval voting” to describe “plurality at-large”, because both of those systems have many features in common, such as allowing voters to pick as many candidates as they like. But approval voting is a single-winner reform, the other is multi-seat, a pretty major difference in terms of how that method functions. I’m sure that approval voting advocates would not like it if some people started calling plurality at-large "another form of approval voting."
I have encouraged FairVote to trademark the names instant runoff voting and ranked choice voting. I think it would be good for the movement, and for future efforts, to have clarity and to clear up this kind of confusion.
Nothing I said was meant to suggest I didn’t agree with your post or that it needed more explanation: in fact, I was agreeing with you and trying to show how I was using the terms interchangeably (as your excellent chronicle suggests we can and should).
I similarly worry about other reformers advocating for non RCV/IRV reforms using the terms ranked choice or instant runoff in research, policy, or legislative contexts. They shouldn’t. But I would be astronomically more worried for our country and our democracy if nonprofit organizations could trademark language, especially language they intend and hope others use for non-commercial purposes. That is a major step towards a first amendment infringement that would have drastic consequences for free speech if replicated across other categories of social impact advocacy and public policy. Imagine if people could not print the words “Pro-Life,” “Black Lives Matter,” “Occupy Wall Street,” or “Right to Work,” out of fear of a trademark infringement? I can think of few things worse for democratic practice.
As an alternative, RCV advocates could simply write into their statutes or legislation one clarifying sentence, like, “RCV is distinct from and explicitly not STAR, Approval, Fusion, Condorcet, or Borda voting.” We should seek solutions that don’t invite major US Constitutional consequences!
Hi Tyler, your alternative is interesting, though I wonder if it would be effective and don't think it would be workable. In the Redondo Beach and San Diego examples, the STAR or Condorcet proponents could have simply said "My reform is also IRV (or RCV)" without mentioning that it is STAR or Condorcet. Then you are bogged down in an argument of "No you're really STAR," "No I'm not," Which is kind of what happened, with IRV advocates saying "No you are not IRV"
I don't think your counter-examples are apples to apples, RCV/IRV describe an actual method or procedure, not just a distinct point of view or opinion and the group that espouses that opinion. RCV/IRV is not just about speech, it is more akin to an operating system, like Windows 10. In fact sometimes we call electoral systems the "operating system" of our democracy. It is more like a product, with a specific instructions or recipe for making that product.
I am not a trademark attorney but the definition of it seems attractive: "A mark is infringed under U.S. trademark law when another person uses a device (a mark) so as to cause confusion as to the source or sponsorship of the goods or services involved. Multiple parties may use the same mark only where the goods of the parties are not so similar as to cause confusion among consumers."
It's the confusion element of this kind of subterfuge that is so damaging. At any rate, FV as far as I know has declined to trademark those terms. Apparently it is not so easy to trademark a term or a concept to protect intellectual property, or apply for a design patent on this kind of intellectual property. So this problem will continue, just read some of the other comments to my article. Some activists are going to continue piggybacking on these terms to advance their own pet reform. My very long post is the result of a collaborative effort to at least document the very specific origin of these specific names/terms in the hopes that these offenders might reconsider their infringement and come up with their own names for their efforts.
I actually wish them great success (as long as they don't use RCV/IRV terms), it's a big country and some of these other methods, in the right city or state, could work decently well compared to plurality at-large. Reform is hard work, and I would like nothing more than to see these non-RCV activists get off their computers and go pass their preferred reform. Let's see how it works in the real world. Approval voting advocates have had a couple of victories, and my hat is off to them (even as I don't think it's such a great system due to the incentives for strategic voting). But Condorcet and STAR advocates have no track record, don't even have voting equipment that could tally such elections. They have a lot of work to do, which I suspect is why they are trying to take a short cut and rebrand as IRV or RCV.
To those claiming that the term "ranked choice voting" is inherently generic enough to encompass other methods, consider that the same is true of many other methods voting method names.
What if proponents of plurality bloc voting started called their system "Approval Voting" because after all, voters are "approving" candidates, albeit up to a limit?
What if proponents of the Borda count or STAR Voting started calling their reform "Score Voting," despite the fact that these methods differ from Score Voting in critical ways?
What if proponents of the top two runoff system started calling that system "Majority Judgement?" You get the idea.
Those who propose using the term "ranked choice voting" to apply to any old method involving a ranked ballot are relying on a standard they don't honestly believe in. It is intended only to coopt or sow confusion.
Ranked choice voting covers all those systems where voters put candidates in order, and votes are transferred according to quotas. They are ordinal systems which have the basic fault that they have no measures of support. Do I like my second choice almost as much as the first or not at all. RCV does not distinguish between the two, so second and later choices mean almost nothing.
I think cardinal systems like score vote are better because they measure support.
For parties, second choice of party for voters whose party does not make threshold is very easy to understand and implement
Hi Edward, thanks for your thoughts but I disagree. Ranked choice voting does NOT cover "all those systems where voters put candidates in order, and votes are transferred according to quotas." That description could cover a lot of other methods, such as pair-wise, Condorcet, Borda etc. The name RCV only covers two methods: the one that is known in places like Australia, the UK and elsewhere as the alternative vote or preferential voting, or in Ireland, Australia, Cambridge MA and elsewhere as single transferable vote. That's it.
That doesn’t mean that for other ranked ballot systems out there they can’t come up with a new name that has the word “rank” in it in some fashion, such as “ranked pairs” as Charles Munger has adopted for his Condorcet method. But if those advocates are being ethical, respectful and sincere advocates, they will not use the words “ranked choice voting” together, or the words “instant runoff voting” together, or any potential derivatives, because it will only create a lot of confusion and undermine advocacy efforts.
This seems like a tricky definition. Definitions are inherently tricky.
If this is the definition, “The name RCV only covers two methods: the one that is known in places like Australia, the UK and elsewhere as the alternative vote or preferential voting, or in Ireland, Australia, Cambridge MA and elsewhere as single transferable vote. That's it.” … should the organization Utah Ranked Choice Voting not use the term to describe a ranked voting mechanism that delivers two or more non proportional winners in a bloc preferential election? If we are to critique others for using imprecise terms, must we hold ourselves to the same standard?
Tyler, my own view to your question is that the Utah advocates should NOT have used RCV for that system. That system is most definitely not RCV, and they should have used a different name. I had a disagreement with Rob about that, though I ultimately supported his efforts in Utah despite my disagreement, more out of loyalty. Rob decided to "lend" the name RCV to that non-RCV method you described, and that opened a Pandora's box that would have been better not to open. Specifically, now others can call their method RCV as well, since if Rob can expand what RCV is, why can't they?
Also, Rob doing that really alienated certain people like political scientist Jack Santucci, who felt it was a real watering down of the RCV brand to include a system that is plurality at-large on steroids, i.e enhancing the "sweep effect" that many of the Founders/Framers found so troubling (and prompted them to support district elections over plurality at-large) because of how it allows the largest plurality bloc of voters to sweep 100% of representation. That is the very opposite of proportional representation, which for 30 years has been the North star of CVD/FV. FYI, my previous article discussed the debate in early America over districts vs at-large and the sweep effect, if you are interested, see "What would the Founders and Framers do today?"
Subtitle/teaser: "For over two centuries, Americans have experimented with different ways of electing their political representatives. Where is the spirit of innovation today?"
I view RCV as an umbrella term that includes IRV, STV, Preferential Block Voting, the system adopted by Seattle, and versions used for presidential primaries. (Notable common features: all of these methods involve ranking candidates, all of them involve eliminations and transfers, and all of them pass Later No Harm.) While the RCV label excludes (for example) all methods that pass the Condorcet criterion, denying that RCV is an umbrella term means going against a lot of common usage, including from FairVote and academics who study "RCV" without distinguishing the forms used in Cambridge, Utah, and NYC. For more on different variants of RCV, see https://thefulcrum.us/electoral-reforms/what-is-ranked-choice-voting-2106755.
There are many ways of choosing between candidates for one position. Cardinal systems are much easier to understand. Ranked choice systems ( and nobody has a special right to the term) do not ask for measures of relative support, so votes are highly ambiguous. They often are interpreted differently from voter intention. So not useful.
Hi Edward, does anyone have a right to the term Social Security or Medicare? Can those terms mean what anyone wants to use them for? How about Electoral College or universal voter registration? At some point, certain words and definitions have to mean something specific.
In the case of RCV and IRV, "ranked choice voting" DOES mean that the tabulation method must use what Robert has called "the Hare method of the Single-Transferable Vote." And certainly ranked ballots can be tabulated using a different method (Borda, Condorcet, Bucklin)" but that is NOT ranked choice voting.
Or look at it this way -- if you read my whole article, then you know that the name "ranked choice voting" did not even exist before the year 1999. It was invented by the San Francisco city attorney's office as a parallel name for instant runoff voting, which we at the Center for Voting and Democracy (now FairVote) had invented and promoted since the mid-1990s. The new RCV name for IRV was then adopted by the San Francisco director of elections during the process of implementing the first usage of this specific tabulation method in 2004.
Feeling we had no choice in the matter, we at FairVote then started using that "ranked choice voting" name as well in San Francisco for the method that we previously had called instant runoff voting. The RCV name caught on as a better term in certain situations for the SAME METHOD that we previously called instant runoff voting.
Since FairVote in essence invented and promoted (with the assistance of the SF city atty office and department of elections) these two names IRV and RCV, which had never been used before to describe "the Hare method of the Single-Transferable Vote" for single-winner elections or any other method with ranked ballots or otherwise, why would you now try to adopt those names for other methods? What is your motivation? I don't get it. Especially since (as my article and one of my comments above show) doing so has already caused confusion and actually hurt our chances to pass reform?
Again, that doesn’t mean that for other ranked ballot systems that you can’t come up with a new name that has the word “rank” in it in some fashion, such as “ranked pairs” as Charles Munger has adopted for his Condorcet method. Or how about "ranked voting" or "ranked ballots voting"? But if as an advocate you are being ethical, respectful and sincere, I believe you will not use the words “ranked choice voting” or "ranked choice" together, or the words “instant runoff voting” or "instant runoff" together, because those terms have a very specific history and use that did not even exist before the mid-1990s.
If we at CVD/FairVote did not start using and promoting those terms, you would not ever have even heard of them. And using the terms RCV or IRV for other ranked ballot systems that are not "the Hare method of the Single-Transferable Vote" has already contributed to much confusion. So why would you continue to do that? Why not find other names, or just use the names they already have (Borda, pair-wise, Bucklin, Condorcet etc) and stop confusing people?
That's not a rhetorical question, I am sincerely interested in your answer.
RCV stands for Ranked-Choice Voting. IRV stands for Instant-Runoff Voting, a particular *form* of Ranked-Choice Voting.
It *is* dishonest for STAR advocates to call STAR Voting "Instant-Runoff Voting", even though there is actually an instant runoff after the first round, using Score Voting.
Now, there are other IRVs than what is most commonly used. There is also Top-Two Runoff IRV which also has only two rounds. First round to see how candidates line up with first-choice votes and a second round involving only the two candidates with the most first-choice votes, if there was no 50%+ majority in the first place. This is most similar to the delayed runoff that many, many jurisdictions use now. (But it's not the same, of course, because a delayed runoff requires voters to come to the polls and vote a second-time. TTR-IRV uses a ranked ballot to avoid the second election.)
It is also dishonest for you, Rob, and FairVote to insist that the term "Ranked-Choice Voting" applies only to the Hare method. Bucklin Voting is Ranked-Choice Voting. So is Condorcet RCV. Even Borda is RCV, even though it is closer to Score Voting (it's like Score Voting with a restriction that skipped rankings are either not allowed or are ignored).
With the exception of Borda, the *meaning* of the ballot is exactly the same. If a voter ranks Candidate A higher than Candidate B, that simply means that, if it were a two-candidate race between A and B, this voter is voting for A and their vote counts as one vote. It doesn't matter how many levels A is ranked higher than B. It's still One-Person-One-Vote. Borda and Score methods are not.
Ranked-Choice Voting does *not* mean that the tabulation method must use the Hare method of the Single-Transferable Vote. Ranked ballots can be tabulated using a different method (Borda, Condorcet, Bucklin) and it's *still* Ranked-Choice Voting.
You FairVote people are so dishonest *and* greedy. You demand that the semantics adhere to *only* what YOU say the semantics are and you do that to try to control the debate and prevent the truth from being told.
Like this article: https://fairvote.org/defining-the-spoiler-effect/ . A "spoiler" is a loser whose presence in the race materially *changes* who the winner is. Period.
Ranked-Choice Voting is *any* voting method that uses ranked ballots, not single-mark ballots, not approval ballots, not score ballots.
Robert, you can keep calling an apple an orange if you want, but that doesn't mean you are right. In fact "ranked choice voting" DOES mean that the tabulation method must use (as you put it) "the Hare method of the Single-Transferable Vote." And yes, you are correct that "ranked ballots can be tabulated using a different method (Borda, Condorcet, Bucklin)" but that is NOT ranked choice voting.
Or look at it this way -- if you read my whole article, then you know that the name "ranked choice voting" did not even exist before the year 1999. It was invented by the San Francisco city attorney's office as a parallel name for instant runoff voting, which we at the Center for Voting and Democracy (now FairVote) had invented and promoted since the mid-1990s. The new RCV name for IRV was then adopted by the San Francisco director of elections during the process of implementing the first usage of this specific tabulation method in 2004 (which you are calling "the Hare method of the Single-Transferable Vote," though for single-winner elections in the case of SF).
Feeling we had no choice in the matter, we at FairVote then started using that "ranked choice voting" name as well for the method that we previously had called instant runoff voting, and which you have ID'ed as "the Hare method of the Single-Transferable Vote" for single-winner elections.
Since FairVote in essence invented and promoted (with the assistance of the SF city atty office and department of elections) these two names IRV and RCV, which had never been used before to describe "the Hare method of the Single-Transferable Vote" for single-winner elections or any other method, with ranked ballots or otherwise, why would you now try to adopt those names for other methods? What is your motivation? I don't get it. Especially since (as my article and one of my comments above show) doing so has already caused confusion and actually hurt our chances to pass reform, which you say you are in favor of?
Again, that doesn’t mean that for other ranked ballot systems that you can’t come up with a new name that has the word “rank” in it in some fashion, such as “ranked pairs” as Charles Munger has adopted for his Condorcet method. Or how about "ranked voting" or "ranked ballots voting"? But if as an advocate you are being ethical, respectful and sincere, I believe you will not use the words “ranked choice voting” or "ranked choice" together, or the words “instant runoff voting” or "instant runoff" together, because those terms have a very specific history and use that did not even exist before the mid-1990s.
If we at CVD/FairVote did not start using and promoting those terms, you would not ever have even heard of them. And using the terms RCV or IRV for other ranked ballot systems that are not "the Hare method of the Single-Transferable Vote" has already contributed to much confusion. So why would you continue to do that? Why not find other names, or just use the names they already have (Borda, pair-wise, Bucklin, Condorcet etc) and stop confusing people?
That's not a rhetorical question, I am sincerely interested in your answer.
>>Robert, you can keep calling an apple an orange if you want,<<
No. What you're saying is that the orange is fruit and the apple is not. The umbrella term is "fruit". Underneath the umbrella are apples and oranges and pears and strawberries. But you insist that only the orange is under the umbrella. It's a falsehood and it's greedy.
>> but that doesn't mean you are right.<<
No. What makes me right is taxonomy and the meanings of words.
>> In fact "ranked choice voting" DOES mean that the tabulation method must use (as you put it) "the Hare method of the Single-Transferable Vote." <<
No. It's what *you're* saying. It's false and it's greedy and I am calling it out.
The Way Back Machine spells this out. In 2010 it was "IRV America" at FairVote. Then repeals at Burlington VT, Pierce County WA, Cary NC, Aspen CO and some other places that I can't remember happened. "IRV" was losing cachet as a label and FairVote desperately needed to make their product look better. Bingo! New, Improved IRV and we'll call it "RCV". (This is circa 2014/2015.)
Problem is that it's exactly the same failed product. No improvement at all, but it projects the image that it's something different, something better. Not the same as that old, failed IRV. In Burlington 2020, that deception succeeded at fooling a lot of people, despite my efforts. There were literally promoters in Burlington, that were responding to concerns that people remembered from 2009, saying "Oh, no! This is RCV, not IRV."
Just like Trumpers you guys think that you can control the conversation by controlling the lexicography .
Lie #1: RCV (but you're talking about IRV) guarantees that the winner has a majority of voter support. A specific quote from Better Ballot Vermont: "To win an RCV election a candidate *must* get over 50% of the vote." There are plenty of counter examples, but your organization conveniently and dishonestly ignore them.
Lie #2: RCV (but you're talking about IRV) prevents the "Spoiler Effect". When counter examples are shown that demonstrate the falsehood of that claim, you try to redefine what a spoiler is. It's dishonest.
Lie #3: (This comes from RCVRC.) "Does ranked-choice voting impact how long it takes to know who won the election? NO! Ranked-choice voting elections can be tabulated as quickly as a few minutes using round-by-round counting software." (Again they mean IRV.) That's also dishonest. Tell that to the SoS of Maine or Alaska. The issue is not about how fast computers are (they're fast). The issue is the unavoidable centralized tabulation of the vote and the time it takes to securely transport ballot data to the central tabulation facility. The shame is that there *are* RCV methods that are precinct summable and are tabulated locally but IRV is not one of them.
Lie #4: RCV (but you mean IRV) solves the vote-splitting problem. Yeah, like it did in August 2022 with the GOP vote split between Sarah Palin and Nick Begich.
Lie #5: If your vote cannot get your favorite candidate elected, then your second-choice vote is counted instead. Tell that to the Kurt Wright voters in 2009 or the Sarah Palin voters in August 2022. If your candidate is the loser in the IRV final round, your second choice vote is *never* counted. Usually that doesn't make a difference in the outcome of the election, but it *did* in 2009 and 2022.
Lie #6: Vote your hopes not your fears. You can vote for the candidate you really want without fear of "wasting your vote" and helping elect the candidate you loathe. Again, disproven in 2009 and August 2022.
And finally the lie in this opinion piece: Whenever Ranked-Choice Voting is used, there is no other method to count the ballots and determine who the winner is except the Hare method. There simply is no other method for voters and policy makers to consider. Of course, if you're going to adopt Ranked-Choice Voting and use ranked ballots to solve these problems we see with First-Past-The-Post, the only method to use to count the ballots is round-by-round Instant-Runoff and transferring the votes. <-- All that is a lie. And the intent of the lie is to deceive people. To dumb them down. And to sell your product.
You guys keep lying about RCV being the best thing since sliced bread and your lies make the rest of us voting reform activists look bad. That is precisely what you're doing.
Meredith Sumpter, President and CEO of FairVote is quoted saying “ RCV [in the form of IRV] fixes the ‘spoiler problem’ and ensures winning candidates represent the majority of voters”
Two lies in one sentence.
I could tell you a personal lie made by Deb Otis about me. (But I won't for now.)
The problem is that you guys have evolved from voting reform advocates to salesmen. You just gotta sell the product, but you refuse to improve the product or fix bugs in it. My daughter sorta spelled that out: It's like FPTP is Democracy 1.0. Then IRV comes out: Democracy 2.0, but you refuse to recognize demonstrated bugs and issue release version 2.1 . Instead, you just repackage it with the label "RCV" that you have appropriated from the umbrella term, rather than fix bugs and release the fixed version. You're unable to admit to the bugs in the product that you're selling. Nor that the bugs can be fixed (at least a little better).
Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
We are calling you out.
I am not interested in debating the pros and cons of various methods with you. We are not going to agree. I am more concerned that you continue to misrepresent the history of the usage of the terms IRV and RCV. The name change had nothing to do with (as you wrote) "IRV was losing cachet as a label and FairVote desperately needed to make their product look better. Bingo! New, Improved IRV and we'll call it "RCV". (This is circa 2014/2015.)". That is not accurate, not even close. In the interest of truth and honesty, you owe it to this discussion to go back and read my article. Summarizing: The term RCV was invented by the city attorney in San Francisco in 1999 as an alternative name for IRV (for the reasons I detailed in my article). Then after IRV/RCV was passed by the SF voters on the March 2002 ballot, the SF director of elections made the switch to calling it RCV for the first implementation in Nov 2004 (for the reasons I detailed in my article). We the advocates (I ran the campaign in SF) didn't feel we had much choice but to go along. Both names have continued to be used since then for the SAME method, depending on the city or state and the specific usage i.e. instant runoff voting when replacing a two round runoff, RCV in other situations. In fact, the city of Redondo Beach is about to have its first election and there it is known as IRV, not RCV (replacing a two-round runoff).
That is a matter of historical fact. I have told this to you now at least three times. I documented it extensively in my article. If you continue with your own made up history, that will just spread more confusion based on your mis- and disinformation. Or maybe that is in fact your goal, when all is said and done, to spread confusion over the names IRV and RCV?
Strange to hear that RCV was born in the late 1990s when we've had proportional RCV in Cambridge, MA since the 1930s, and, of course, it wasn't invented at that time...or even in the U.S. at all.
I'm not a historian or an expert in comparative politics myself, but the Ranked Choice Voting Research Center (https://www.rcvresources.org/in-practice-cambridge-ma) says this:
"In 1939, the City of Cambridge adopted a city charter electing nine City Councilors and six School Committee members at-large using proportional RCV. With Cambridge's system, a candidate must win a certain proportion of the votes to be elected. This winning fraction of the votes is known as the threshold, or "quota," to win the election."
Anyhow, I don't think you were actually "in the room" in 1939.
Walter -- my article makes it clear that the TERM ranked choice voting (RCV) is what was born in the late 1990s, not the METHOD that it is used as the name for. As the article clearly says, that METHOD was used for 100 years in Australia, used in Ireland to elect its president, used in a number of private orgs, and went by other names, i.e. majority preferential voting, in some cases just preferential voting and alternative vote.
And Cambridge in 1939 most certainly did not use the TERM proportional RCV in 1939, because that term had not yet been invented, it too was invented by FairVote around 2016 or so, even as the METHOD Cambridge uses, also known as single transferable vote, and for a short time choice voting, preference voting and full representation voting (those three also names that FairVote invented/adopted before PRCV).
I realize the article is on the long side, because I was documenting the history of these terms' usage, but it would appear that either you did not read the entire article or else you missed the clear distinction between the TERMS for RCV and IRV and when they first were used by FairVote (in its earlier Center for Voting and Democracy phase) before anyone else, and the METHODS themselves which have been around for many years.
I hope that further clarifies things.
Dunno about RCV, but the term "instant runoff" was first used in 1911.
Do you have proof for that claim?
And regardless, by the time we at the Center for Voting and Democracy (now FairVote) launched the modern movement for electoral system reform in the early 90s, NOBODY was using "instant runoff," neither among academics, reformers or elected officials. That term did not exist, for all intents and purposes. Until we at CVD started using it, that is a matter of historical fact.
I see. Is it your view that the terms "instant runoff" and "ranked choice" are better than "preferential voting" or any of the other terms used for this method since the 1870s?
Walter, yes, those terms IRV and RCV have been better in terms of actually passing and sustaining electoral system reform, either by getting a majority of voters to adopt it via a ballot measure or getting a majority of legislators to adopt it. Those terms, each in their own way, are more descriptive so have helped the public, media, elected official etc. to have a better sense of what the reform actually does without needing a long explanation. At the Center for Voting and Democracy (and now FairVote) we tried using the term preferential voting for a number of years, and that eventually morphed into choice voting, fair representation voting, and finally proportional ranked choice voting.
In fact, I ran the campaign for STV in San Francisco in 1996 and we called it preference voting. Also on the ballot was whether to move to district elections or retain the then-current plurality at-large system for the SF Board of Supervisors (the city council). Preference voting lost with 44% of the vote. As my article says, Minneapolis also used preference voting for its ballot measure in 2006 for mostly single-winner elections for mayor, city council etc. (though it also included using STV for park board elections, but that was not a feature of the campaign). But by the time of its first implementation in 2009, Minneapolis had changed the name to “ranked choice voting” because it is more descriptive of what the voter has to do.
Thank you for such a thoughtful and historical post. I have found the debate on “which term should we use?” a bit simplistic.
Ranking is what voters do, an instant runoff is what election administrator does. I’ve taken to tying the two together, and to a value:
What is Ranked Choice Voting / Instant Runoff Voting? My reply: “Voters rank their choices and an instant runoff determines a majority winner.”
Thanks for your thoughts Tyler. In general conversations, your explanation works well. Where matters get more complicated is when you get to a point of writing legislation, or interpreting existing law for implementation, of the specific electoral system. At that point definitions and names matter a great deal. For example, you can’t have a passed law, approved by 70% of voters, that calls for “instant runoff voting” and instead have an attempt to implement STAR voting instead. That’s what happened recently in Redondo Beach. The STAR proponents tried to say “we rank candidates too, and our system has a similar runoff.” It created mass confusion, allowing the anti-reformers to nearly stop the implementation of IRV in its tracks.
A similar situation happened a couple of years ago in San Diego, where an attempt to pass single-winner ranked choice voting was detoured into an effort to instead pass Condorcet voting. Again, the usurpers tried to say “our system has rankings too, it is 'ranked choice' too.” The San Diego effort wasted precious time for many months sorting that out, and in the end the effort died.
So these names and definitions actually matter, and if too much fuzziness creeps into their use during the advocacy, it will create confusion that undermines the public’s understanding of what IRV/RCV is.
In my article, I explained where the exact terms “instant runoff voting” and “ranked choice voting” came from -- from those of us at the Center for Voting and Democracy (now FairVote). There was no prior use of those terms before we started using them (believe me, we researched it). Those particular names describe the exact same system. There is no other system of instant runoff voting other than the one that FairVote/Center for Voting and Democracy has advocated for. And there is no other system of ranked choice voting other than the one that FairVote/Center for Voting and Democracy has advocated for. And IRV and RCV are the exact same thing.
Certainly that doesn’t mean that for other ranked ballot systems out there they can’t come up with a new name that has the word “rank” in it in some fashion, such as “ranked pairs” as Charles Munger has adopted for his Condorcet method. But if those advocates are being ethical, respectful and sincere, they will not use the words “ranked choice voting” or "ranked choice" together, or the words “instant runoff voting” or "instant runoff" together because it will contribute to confusion.
See Greg Dennis’s post in this discussion, in which he provides some excellent examples of how advocates could misuse the name “approval voting” to describe “plurality at-large”, because both of those systems have many features in common, such as allowing voters to pick as many candidates as they like. But approval voting is a single-winner reform, the other is multi-seat, a pretty major difference in terms of how that method functions. I’m sure that approval voting advocates would not like it if some people started calling plurality at-large "another form of approval voting."
I have encouraged FairVote to trademark the names instant runoff voting and ranked choice voting. I think it would be good for the movement, and for future efforts, to have clarity and to clear up this kind of confusion.
Nothing I said was meant to suggest I didn’t agree with your post or that it needed more explanation: in fact, I was agreeing with you and trying to show how I was using the terms interchangeably (as your excellent chronicle suggests we can and should).
I similarly worry about other reformers advocating for non RCV/IRV reforms using the terms ranked choice or instant runoff in research, policy, or legislative contexts. They shouldn’t. But I would be astronomically more worried for our country and our democracy if nonprofit organizations could trademark language, especially language they intend and hope others use for non-commercial purposes. That is a major step towards a first amendment infringement that would have drastic consequences for free speech if replicated across other categories of social impact advocacy and public policy. Imagine if people could not print the words “Pro-Life,” “Black Lives Matter,” “Occupy Wall Street,” or “Right to Work,” out of fear of a trademark infringement? I can think of few things worse for democratic practice.
As an alternative, RCV advocates could simply write into their statutes or legislation one clarifying sentence, like, “RCV is distinct from and explicitly not STAR, Approval, Fusion, Condorcet, or Borda voting.” We should seek solutions that don’t invite major US Constitutional consequences!
Hi Tyler, your alternative is interesting, though I wonder if it would be effective and don't think it would be workable. In the Redondo Beach and San Diego examples, the STAR or Condorcet proponents could have simply said "My reform is also IRV (or RCV)" without mentioning that it is STAR or Condorcet. Then you are bogged down in an argument of "No you're really STAR," "No I'm not," Which is kind of what happened, with IRV advocates saying "No you are not IRV"
I don't think your counter-examples are apples to apples, RCV/IRV describe an actual method or procedure, not just a distinct point of view or opinion and the group that espouses that opinion. RCV/IRV is not just about speech, it is more akin to an operating system, like Windows 10. In fact sometimes we call electoral systems the "operating system" of our democracy. It is more like a product, with a specific instructions or recipe for making that product.
I am not a trademark attorney but the definition of it seems attractive: "A mark is infringed under U.S. trademark law when another person uses a device (a mark) so as to cause confusion as to the source or sponsorship of the goods or services involved. Multiple parties may use the same mark only where the goods of the parties are not so similar as to cause confusion among consumers."
It's the confusion element of this kind of subterfuge that is so damaging. At any rate, FV as far as I know has declined to trademark those terms. Apparently it is not so easy to trademark a term or a concept to protect intellectual property, or apply for a design patent on this kind of intellectual property. So this problem will continue, just read some of the other comments to my article. Some activists are going to continue piggybacking on these terms to advance their own pet reform. My very long post is the result of a collaborative effort to at least document the very specific origin of these specific names/terms in the hopes that these offenders might reconsider their infringement and come up with their own names for their efforts.
I actually wish them great success (as long as they don't use RCV/IRV terms), it's a big country and some of these other methods, in the right city or state, could work decently well compared to plurality at-large. Reform is hard work, and I would like nothing more than to see these non-RCV activists get off their computers and go pass their preferred reform. Let's see how it works in the real world. Approval voting advocates have had a couple of victories, and my hat is off to them (even as I don't think it's such a great system due to the incentives for strategic voting). But Condorcet and STAR advocates have no track record, don't even have voting equipment that could tally such elections. They have a lot of work to do, which I suspect is why they are trying to take a short cut and rebrand as IRV or RCV.
To those claiming that the term "ranked choice voting" is inherently generic enough to encompass other methods, consider that the same is true of many other methods voting method names.
What if proponents of plurality bloc voting started called their system "Approval Voting" because after all, voters are "approving" candidates, albeit up to a limit?
What if proponents of the Borda count or STAR Voting started calling their reform "Score Voting," despite the fact that these methods differ from Score Voting in critical ways?
What if proponents of the top two runoff system started calling that system "Majority Judgement?" You get the idea.
Those who propose using the term "ranked choice voting" to apply to any old method involving a ranked ballot are relying on a standard they don't honestly believe in. It is intended only to coopt or sow confusion.
Ranked choice voting covers all those systems where voters put candidates in order, and votes are transferred according to quotas. They are ordinal systems which have the basic fault that they have no measures of support. Do I like my second choice almost as much as the first or not at all. RCV does not distinguish between the two, so second and later choices mean almost nothing.
I think cardinal systems like score vote are better because they measure support.
For parties, second choice of party for voters whose party does not make threshold is very easy to understand and implement
Hi Edward, thanks for your thoughts but I disagree. Ranked choice voting does NOT cover "all those systems where voters put candidates in order, and votes are transferred according to quotas." That description could cover a lot of other methods, such as pair-wise, Condorcet, Borda etc. The name RCV only covers two methods: the one that is known in places like Australia, the UK and elsewhere as the alternative vote or preferential voting, or in Ireland, Australia, Cambridge MA and elsewhere as single transferable vote. That's it.
That doesn’t mean that for other ranked ballot systems out there they can’t come up with a new name that has the word “rank” in it in some fashion, such as “ranked pairs” as Charles Munger has adopted for his Condorcet method. But if those advocates are being ethical, respectful and sincere advocates, they will not use the words “ranked choice voting” together, or the words “instant runoff voting” together, or any potential derivatives, because it will only create a lot of confusion and undermine advocacy efforts.
This seems like a tricky definition. Definitions are inherently tricky.
If this is the definition, “The name RCV only covers two methods: the one that is known in places like Australia, the UK and elsewhere as the alternative vote or preferential voting, or in Ireland, Australia, Cambridge MA and elsewhere as single transferable vote. That's it.” … should the organization Utah Ranked Choice Voting not use the term to describe a ranked voting mechanism that delivers two or more non proportional winners in a bloc preferential election? If we are to critique others for using imprecise terms, must we hold ourselves to the same standard?
Tyler, my own view to your question is that the Utah advocates should NOT have used RCV for that system. That system is most definitely not RCV, and they should have used a different name. I had a disagreement with Rob about that, though I ultimately supported his efforts in Utah despite my disagreement, more out of loyalty. Rob decided to "lend" the name RCV to that non-RCV method you described, and that opened a Pandora's box that would have been better not to open. Specifically, now others can call their method RCV as well, since if Rob can expand what RCV is, why can't they?
Also, Rob doing that really alienated certain people like political scientist Jack Santucci, who felt it was a real watering down of the RCV brand to include a system that is plurality at-large on steroids, i.e enhancing the "sweep effect" that many of the Founders/Framers found so troubling (and prompted them to support district elections over plurality at-large) because of how it allows the largest plurality bloc of voters to sweep 100% of representation. That is the very opposite of proportional representation, which for 30 years has been the North star of CVD/FV. FYI, my previous article discussed the debate in early America over districts vs at-large and the sweep effect, if you are interested, see "What would the Founders and Framers do today?"
https://democracysos.substack.com/p/what-would-the-founders-and-framers
Subtitle/teaser: "For over two centuries, Americans have experimented with different ways of electing their political representatives. Where is the spirit of innovation today?"
I view RCV as an umbrella term that includes IRV, STV, Preferential Block Voting, the system adopted by Seattle, and versions used for presidential primaries. (Notable common features: all of these methods involve ranking candidates, all of them involve eliminations and transfers, and all of them pass Later No Harm.) While the RCV label excludes (for example) all methods that pass the Condorcet criterion, denying that RCV is an umbrella term means going against a lot of common usage, including from FairVote and academics who study "RCV" without distinguishing the forms used in Cambridge, Utah, and NYC. For more on different variants of RCV, see https://thefulcrum.us/electoral-reforms/what-is-ranked-choice-voting-2106755.
There are many ways of choosing between candidates for one position. Cardinal systems are much easier to understand. Ranked choice systems ( and nobody has a special right to the term) do not ask for measures of relative support, so votes are highly ambiguous. They often are interpreted differently from voter intention. So not useful.
Hi Edward, does anyone have a right to the term Social Security or Medicare? Can those terms mean what anyone wants to use them for? How about Electoral College or universal voter registration? At some point, certain words and definitions have to mean something specific.
In the case of RCV and IRV, "ranked choice voting" DOES mean that the tabulation method must use what Robert has called "the Hare method of the Single-Transferable Vote." And certainly ranked ballots can be tabulated using a different method (Borda, Condorcet, Bucklin)" but that is NOT ranked choice voting.
Or look at it this way -- if you read my whole article, then you know that the name "ranked choice voting" did not even exist before the year 1999. It was invented by the San Francisco city attorney's office as a parallel name for instant runoff voting, which we at the Center for Voting and Democracy (now FairVote) had invented and promoted since the mid-1990s. The new RCV name for IRV was then adopted by the San Francisco director of elections during the process of implementing the first usage of this specific tabulation method in 2004.
Feeling we had no choice in the matter, we at FairVote then started using that "ranked choice voting" name as well in San Francisco for the method that we previously had called instant runoff voting. The RCV name caught on as a better term in certain situations for the SAME METHOD that we previously called instant runoff voting.
Since FairVote in essence invented and promoted (with the assistance of the SF city atty office and department of elections) these two names IRV and RCV, which had never been used before to describe "the Hare method of the Single-Transferable Vote" for single-winner elections or any other method with ranked ballots or otherwise, why would you now try to adopt those names for other methods? What is your motivation? I don't get it. Especially since (as my article and one of my comments above show) doing so has already caused confusion and actually hurt our chances to pass reform?
Again, that doesn’t mean that for other ranked ballot systems that you can’t come up with a new name that has the word “rank” in it in some fashion, such as “ranked pairs” as Charles Munger has adopted for his Condorcet method. Or how about "ranked voting" or "ranked ballots voting"? But if as an advocate you are being ethical, respectful and sincere, I believe you will not use the words “ranked choice voting” or "ranked choice" together, or the words “instant runoff voting” or "instant runoff" together, because those terms have a very specific history and use that did not even exist before the mid-1990s.
If we at CVD/FairVote did not start using and promoting those terms, you would not ever have even heard of them. And using the terms RCV or IRV for other ranked ballot systems that are not "the Hare method of the Single-Transferable Vote" has already contributed to much confusion. So why would you continue to do that? Why not find other names, or just use the names they already have (Borda, pair-wise, Bucklin, Condorcet etc) and stop confusing people?
That's not a rhetorical question, I am sincerely interested in your answer.