Keep in mind Arrow's impossibility theorem: There is *no* voting system that satisfies a short list of plausible-looking, indeed weak-looking, requirements.
No ranked system anyway. There seems debate about score voting.
But that doesn't mean all the systems are equally bad, else we wouldn't bother trying to replace plurality. And I think the proof is less about system flaws than the nature of collective preference. There may not be a Condorcet winner and then the right choice isn't obvious. But IRV doesn't even pick a Condorcet winner when one clearly exists.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
But that doesn't mean all the systems are equally bad, else we wouldn't bother trying to replace plurality. And I think the proof is less about system flaws than the nature of collective preference. There may not be a Condorcet winner and then the right choice isn't obvious. But IRV doesn't even pick a Condorcet winner when one clearly exists.