Learn more here: https://www.opavote.com/methods/ranked-choice-voting

In first past the post elections like the one that just occurred, voters may be forced to vote strategically as opposed to preferentially.

For example, let's say a voter prefers a less popular candidate named RED, but he strongly dislikes a more popular candidate named YELLOW, and has mixed feelings about another more popular candidate named BLUE. The voter strategically votes for his #2 favourite option BLUE, instead of his #1 favourite option RED. He does this because he thinks that voting for RED would divide the vote for BLUE, who is the only candidate popular enough to stop YELLOW from winning.

This is called the spoiler effect, and it explains why a two party system forms in most democracies.

The result of first past the post elections can also be unfair. For example, although anonymously.deleted received the most votes, more than 50% of everyone did not vote for her. This means that a majority of voters are not satisfied with the result. Ranked choice instant runoff voting ensures that as many voters as possible are satisfied.

The way it works is that you vote by ranking the candidates in order of preference. The #1 choice votes are all counted. If nobody receives more than 50% of #1 choice votes, the least popular candidate is eliminated, and his/her #2 votes are distributed accordingly. This process is repeated until someone receives at least 50% of the vote.

This way, the result will ensure that the winner of the election will be someone at least half of the voters are satisfied with.

This is brilliant. I know this is rude, but can I support this voting system in my campaign ads? I can give you credit

I knew my idea was going to be copied soon enough. I guess I can't stop you from copying this policy, although I will go after you for it.

If you’d rather me not, I won’t

It is your decision, not mine.

I know it is, but I am asking for your full permission
Basically I’m asking if you’re gonna go after me

You already have my full permission. As you know, I do not believe in excessive restrictions. You should be allowed to support whatever policies you want to. But this does not mean I won't go after you, either.

I know, but

Aaauuuuggggghhhhhh

Are you going to go after me

I am afraid that I cannot answer that for now ;)

Gotcha x}

I'm confused.

About what?

I don't get the spoiler effect.

So the voter in this scenario agrees with a less popular candidate named RED. He strongly disagrees a more popular candidate named YELLOW, and he has mixed feelings about another more popular candidate named BLUE. If the voter votes for RED, the BLUE vote would be divided, since RED and BLUE have similar platforms and support bases. And if the BLUE vote is divided, then it would be easier for YELLOW to win. So the voter realises that no one else will vote for RED since that candidate is less popular, and voting for him would only help YELLOW, who the voter hates. But the voter does not mind voting for BLUE, who he has mixed feelings about, because BLUE has a lot of support, and he is the only candidate with enough support to stop YELLOW. So despite agreeing with RED more than BLUE, the voter strategically votes for BLUE in order to stop YELLOW from winning.

OHHHHHHH I get it

Nice. And this is why we need to use ranked choice voting in the IMGFLIP_PRESIDENTS elections on https://www.opavote.com/. The voters rank the candidates in order of their personal preference, no matter how well each one does in the polls. You will not need to pick just one candidate based on his/her popularity. The only valid argument against ranked choice voting, and the only reason it is not implemented worldwide, is because it is a complicated and expensive voting method, and it can cost a lot more money since the votes are counted more than once. But this is not a problem if the election is done digitally.

oh ok

r u talking abt the alternative vote! if so im all for it

Yes, I support the alternative vote.

I'm glad someone brought it up.