I will never understand the appeal of ranked choice votinghttps://twitter.com/thehill/status/1004952685253201922 …
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
... the most votes in the second round. And, if they are, but are still not at 50%, they didn't win. So, you go to round three — and so on, losing the lowest person until the top vote-getter gets about 50%. And see: It will be the top vote-getter — in that round — who wins!
I've been told this system produces the same winner a runoff would (and of course saves the cost of a runoff) — is that an assumption or is there evidence of it?
You can’t definitely say — because you could always learn more about the candidates in the interim — but there are many arguments that it makes it more fair and more democratic.
Yes Ontario might not have just elected Doug Ford if they had ranked ballots. He only got 40% of the vote and only 7% more than 2nd place but twice as many seats.
I'm confused. How does this type of ranked voting work? Sounds dubious.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.