Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
Ranked voting and runoff systems seem to have nothing but positives yet adoption is still lacking for some reason.
No electoral method is perfect and there are problems with Instant runoff ranked ballots. Look up "Favourite Betrayal" as a problem where ranking your most favourite incorrectly can accidentally result in your least favourite winning.

Of course just because there are technically flaws, doesn't mean it's not an improvement over the status quo.

Instant Runoff Ranked ballots are particularly well suited for electing a single position like a Mayor or President. Given that it's still a majoritarian system like First Pass the Post, it's a much more questionable system to use for other things like electing a parliament.

I think IRV at least has fairly unpredictable failure cases, which means they can't be exploited.

I remember seeing a 2D chart representing voter preferences on the X and Y axis, coloured by who wins under those preferences (and some symmetry-breaking assumptions). Some systems showed clear biases towards certain outcomes. IRV had a pretty symmetric shape but with a splotch in the middle that was a random jumble of different colours - an unpredictable, chaotic outcome.

loading story #50239665
loading story #50239414
loading story #50240528
Depends on which ranked system. IRV has a lot of issues that other systems (like STAR, my personal preference in voting system, or Condorcet methods for instance) address much better. Non-monotonicity in particular seems like a bad property of a voting system, so I'm confused that IRV is so popular recently.
loading story #50239365
loading story #50239422
First past the post is beneficial for establishment parties.
Indeed. It tends to reinforce a two-party system. Anyone who votes third-party gets accused of 'wasting' their vote.

Preferential/ranked choice voting allows people to vote third-party while still expressing a preference for one of the majors.