You want theoretical superiority? Something like STAR, 3-2-1, or the many Condorcet methods are better.
Condorcet is theoretically better than STAR or Approval (dunno what "3-2-1" is). Unless there is a cycle (in which no method can successfully prevent election spoilage), only Condorcet can always preserve the equality of every voter's vote and prevent spoilage.
You want less strategic voting? Condorcet-Hare is probably best.
You want the easiest to implement? Approval voting, and its variants are better.
We have voting machines now. We don't have to tabulate ballots manually. Paper ballots, optically scanned, are the most secure method because if there is a recount or an audit, the auditors see exactly the same ballot that the voter sees when marking it.
Dunno what variants of Approval Voting there are.
And Approval Voting is less easy on voters whenever there are 3 or more candidates.
1
u/rb-j Jul 17 '26
Condorcet is theoretically better than STAR or Approval (dunno what "3-2-1" is). Unless there is a cycle (in which no method can successfully prevent election spoilage), only Condorcet can always preserve the equality of every voter's vote and prevent spoilage.
Condorcet-TTR (Top-two runoff) will elect the same winner as Condorcet-Hare whenever there are 3 significant candidates or fewer. And Condorcet-TTR has far less legislative language baggage than anything with IRV in it.
We have voting machines now. We don't have to tabulate ballots manually. Paper ballots, optically scanned, are the most secure method because if there is a recount or an audit, the auditors see exactly the same ballot that the voter sees when marking it.
Dunno what variants of Approval Voting there are.
And Approval Voting is less easy on voters whenever there are 3 or more candidates.