Read full report at: https://eigentaylor.github.io/blog/ditch-rcv/

Conclusion:

If you want a system to last, that delivers on its promises, that the public can trust, that is transparent and auditable, and that allows for greater expression without falling into the expressiveness trap, then Approval voting is the clear choice. RCV has failed in every single one of these categories, and it is time to ditch it before it poisons the well for all electoral reform.

The most persuasive arguments for RCV only really hold up if you ignore the real-world data and failures of RCV. If you come away from this post thinking “well, I’m not convinced about Approval voting, but Ranked Robin sounds pretty good”, then I’d even be satisfied with that. But I feel the most important considerations we have to make when dealing with a practical problem like “how to replace our current Plurality system with something better”, then there are a number of disqualifying factors for RCV, depending on what you value:

• If you value voter trust in the system, RCV has completely and utterly failed in Oakland, Burlington, and Alaska.

• If you want the system to permanently replace our current system, RCV has consistently failed to do this, due to its repeated voter-led repeal attempts.

• If you value getting the best outcomes, RCV is one of the worst choices for an alternative system. It consistently underperforms methods like Approval (despite Approval being simpler), Ranked Robin, and STAR.

• If you value logistics, like the expenses and complexity of running elections, RCV is absolutely the worst choice. Approval, Ranked Robin, and STAR are all far more practical, with Approval being the best by this metric.

• If you value expressiveness, the fact that RCV fails to be Condorcet consistent means that it does not respect the expression it actually collects. This leads to trust-breaking failure modes.

• If you value legitimacy, then RCV is one of the worst here. Again, when you do not elect the Condorcet winner expressed by the ballots then you fail to provide legitimacy to the results. STAR cannot guarantee this either, and even Ranked Robin struggles when a cycle occurs (despite their immense rarity, only occurring in small elections). Approval voting (and even Plurality voting to a far lesser extent) is the only system that can provide full legitimacy to the winner in every case.

I worry that a Condorcet failure or legitimacy crisis may occur under STAR, and we’re back to the same issues with RCV, but worse. If we get another chance after RCV, and we go with STAR–which is less tested, fails more criteria, and has far less literature than Approval voting–I don’t see us getting a third chance. I worry that a Condorcet cycle in a high stakes election may bring into question the integrity of whatever cycle-breaking mechanism is decided for Ranked Robin. We have seen that room for error and doubt can lead to disaster for RCV, and so I worry that any system that has a nonzero chance of a legitimacy crisis may be a nonstarter in the current political climate.

The reform conversation is split between convincing people that we need reform at all (or that reform is not a secret plot to undermine democracy), and squabbles between those who are convinced on the best solution. I hope that this post can help with the latter, and convince those who are already on board with reform that RCV is not the answer, and that Approval voting is the best path forward.

The only system that checks all of the boxes is Approval voting. It is the only system that makes sense in this era of distrust in our elections. It is the most reliable, robust, and practical solution available to us right now.

To the RCV advocates, and even the non-RCV advocates who have dismissed Approval, I ask that you consider these points carefully. Our goal to replace Plurality voting unites us, and I truly believe that the best chance we have is Approval voting.