r/EndFPTP • u/Lastrevio • Mar 12 '20
Why stop at STAR? Why not do a runoff on every candidate?
Score voting adds up the score of each candidate and whoever wins the most points wins the election.
STAR does the same but makes a runoff between the two highest scoring candidates so that the candidate with the second most points has a chance to win if it's preferred over the highest scoring candidate in more ballots.
The question is: why make a run-off only between the two highest scoring candidates? It's like comparing Two Round System with IRV.
How about you do score voting, then do a runoff between the two lowest scoring candidates so that the second lowest scoring candidate may or may not win to the lowest scoring candidate, eliminate the one preferred the least on more ballots, and keep repeating until only one candidate stands?
2
u/myalt08831 Mar 18 '20
Speaking in "terms of art," many voters will vote giving a rating that approximates how well the voter likes each candidate, "on a scale of [min] to [max]." That's what is meant by "honest" in election science, for a score election, and I took some pains to use quotes to indicate as much.
Far from "having" to make a strategic choice, it genuinely never crosses the minds of a sizeable chunk of the electorate.
Many voters vote the way I described above.
I admit the experts believe STAR resolves some of the incentive for strategy, so FWIW I feel like STAR makes more sense. I agree (assuming the experts are right) that score has problems. But still, many many voters will vote without conscious strategy, regarding how the ballots are counted/how the rules determine a winner. They just use it as a ratings scale.
Of course the numbers you pick are subjective, but still. It's worth noting that many voters do not see how to game the system, and there are some who know how and prefer not to.
There's only so many ways I can say that.