Which of these options are you favorites? Rank up to 5 options:

https://www.rcv123.org/ballot/9T1G8AJZDeRPZiWJwWaKsB

You may also answer and discuss here, but only the votes in the link is counted for the purposes of this survey.

Why am I doing this? Because I missed the polls from [the website that shall not be named], so I wanted to experiment a bit here. And what better way to do polls than the best way! I hereby present you to the Ranked Choice Ballot! Ta-da! (Please go vote, I spent a lot of time on this)

Edit: If you don’t want to vote, here are the results from all the votes so far:

https://www.rcv123.org/results/9T1G8AJZDeRPZiWJwWaKsB

  • Risk@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    No no, I was asking about the differences between Single Transferable Vote and STAR - not RCV/IRV.

    • chaogomu@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      RCV is the single winner version of STV.

      Every single fault of RCV is present in STV, but because it’s a multi-winner format, the complexity and lack of transparency in the counting process are far worse.

      If you really want proportional or multi-winner elections, then a better option is this.

      It’s based off of Score the same way that STAR is, but tweaked to be multi-winner.

      • Risk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ah, okay - thanks for the explanation.

        I do like the idea of multi-winner elections because of the increased chance of having a representative for your specific issues taken to a national assembly. In the UK things are split up into boroughs, which seems illogical for cities and aside from being grandfathered in likely only persists because it enables gerrymandering.