Great article! I’m on full support of ranked head to head. My only note is that you say there’s no easy way to prevent people having to strategically vote in the first round. It might not be a good idea from an advocacy / complexity pov but this does seem like a use case for RCV. In the first round set a threshold of 25% to advance. Then eliminate lowest candidate and redistribute “extra” votes above 25% until you have only 4 remaining.
Yeah, there's a footnote about how you could use RCV there. Honestly I think strategic voting in the first round is... fine. It's obviously not ideal, but if this was the only issue with the voting system we used, I would probably never have spent hundreds of hours writing about constitutional design. I don't think adopting RCV for the first round is worth the advocacy cost. Having to keep in mind that you have two ranked elections, each of which uses ranking in a different way, is just a lot to take in.
Great article! I’m on full support of ranked head to head. My only note is that you say there’s no easy way to prevent people having to strategically vote in the first round. It might not be a good idea from an advocacy / complexity pov but this does seem like a use case for RCV. In the first round set a threshold of 25% to advance. Then eliminate lowest candidate and redistribute “extra” votes above 25% until you have only 4 remaining.
Yeah, there's a footnote about how you could use RCV there. Honestly I think strategic voting in the first round is... fine. It's obviously not ideal, but if this was the only issue with the voting system we used, I would probably never have spent hundreds of hours writing about constitutional design. I don't think adopting RCV for the first round is worth the advocacy cost. Having to keep in mind that you have two ranked elections, each of which uses ranking in a different way, is just a lot to take in.