“Ranked choice voting” is easy. Deciding how to calculate the winner isn’t. There are multiple possible methods and mathematically, the “instant runoff” method seems to be among the worst, yet that’s what people mean when they say “ranked choice.” In Santa Fe’s first attempt at IRV in their mayoral race, it took 6-7 “rounds” of counting to figure out who won. Was that a mandate?
Then there are the details. Suppose there are three candidates, but you only want the one. You really don’t want the other two to get in. Do you just fill in the “1st” oval? Then you’ve gotten a single vote, where people who put in choices 1st, 2nd, 3rd in effect get three votes. Is that fair? Should your single vote be given more weight? (Ditto for 2 out of three).
An interesting experiment to be watched closely.
It does have the potential to result in more moderate candidates in an open primary…
I would love to see an analysis of this assuming a jungle primary format. At some level it may be possible to game the system by strategic voting combined with an unequal number of candidates between the parties.
That’s not how it works. Everyone has one vote, which may go to a different candidate depending on how the counting goes.
I’m in favor for a “none of the above” option in the rankings. You would rank the totally unacceptable candidates below that option. The Hugo Awards have a “No Award” option. There have been times when “No Award” won.
Borda Count or Approval Voting would be better methods for determining the winner.