I would personally greatly prefer you use the name “instant runoff” rather than “ranked choice”.
“instant runoff” is descriptive of what it’s actually doing, if the listener is familiar with runoff elections.
There are many other voting methods which rank choices. Calling it “ranked choice” seems to marginalize this entire category of voting methods. For example, Borda count is a much older voting method which ranks choices.
This isn’t just my opinion; I was convinced by Jameson Quinn:
IRV (Instant runoff voting), aka Alternative Vote or RCV (Ranked Choice Voting… I hate that name, which deliberately appropriates the entire “ranked” category for this one specific method)
Would you be willing to edit the article to change the term?
Alice is the clear intuitive choice, but according to plurality rules, Dave ends up winning despite being despised by 70% of the electorate.
Sorry for focusing on nitpicks, but: I generally prefer writers taboo phrases like “clear intuitive choice” for voting theory. I have few intuitions when I look at a set of ordinal preferences like this! It seems like voting theorists do have such intuitions, and tend to heavily assume their readers do, too. My working hypothesis is that any time voting theorists invoke the concept of “intuitive winner” in an election, they actually could (with sufficient introspection) name a specific property which this “intuitive winner” has, and could argue for the appeal of this property. This would better communicate the intuition to the rest of us, and potentially, clarify arguments and positions for the voting theorist as well.
Each cohort knows that Carol is not a realistic threat to their preferred candidate, and will thus rank her second, while ranking their true second choice last. For any individual, this is a good strategy to maximizing the odds of their preferred candidate, but in aggregate, it leads to [...] a victory for Carol, even though she was universally despised.
As others have pointed out, this does not seem true. I believed you for a few days but then noticed my confusion when I tried to explain it to someone else. I have downvoted the post as a result of this severe error, but would upvote it again if corrected.
I would personally greatly prefer you use the name “instant runoff” rather than “ranked choice”.
“instant runoff” is descriptive of what it’s actually doing, if the listener is familiar with runoff elections.
There are many other voting methods which rank choices. Calling it “ranked choice” seems to marginalize this entire category of voting methods. For example, Borda count is a much older voting method which ranks choices.
This isn’t just my opinion; I was convinced by Jameson Quinn:
Would you be willing to edit the article to change the term?
Sorry for focusing on nitpicks, but: I generally prefer writers taboo phrases like “clear intuitive choice” for voting theory. I have few intuitions when I look at a set of ordinal preferences like this! It seems like voting theorists do have such intuitions, and tend to heavily assume their readers do, too. My working hypothesis is that any time voting theorists invoke the concept of “intuitive winner” in an election, they actually could (with sufficient introspection) name a specific property which this “intuitive winner” has, and could argue for the appeal of this property. This would better communicate the intuition to the rest of us, and potentially, clarify arguments and positions for the voting theorist as well.
As others have pointed out, this does not seem true. I believed you for a few days but then noticed my confusion when I tried to explain it to someone else. I have downvoted the post as a result of this severe error, but would upvote it again if corrected.