I usually ignore the misinformation, but this one is direct from Forbes, and not just that but direct from Steve Forbes himself, and the directness of the lies are direct enough to be worth noting. A little bit.
I usually ignore the misinformation, but this one is direct from Forbes, and not just that but direct from Steve Forbes himself, and the directness of the lies are direct enough to be worth noting. A little bit.
Nonsense. You receive your 1st preference votes, and then if no candidate has achieved an outright majority, the last candidate is eliminated and their 2nd preferences receive their votes, etc.
Yes, IRV involves giving preferences to candidates rather than just a simple single vote for a single candidate, but your vote is distributed according to your preferences and it’s silly to talk about it as though votes don’t go to candidates. That kind of language would make more sense for a system like range voting or maybe Borda Count, just not IRV where you can count the election by physically moving individual ballots into piles for each candidate and counting them.
That’s a good point. I often see ranked choice being misrepresented (in the USA) by confusing the terminology and semantics like this, so I was just trying to emphasize the difference. But your explanation also makes sense and is accurate description of ranked choice as I understand it.
Yeah I was probably being a little extreme by starting that comment with “nonsense”. But yeah we use IRV for most of our elections here in Australia, and it’s very routine to talk about which candidate received which votes.