Except that the lack of a third candidate is partially because of the FPTP system.
Right, that’s what I said in my previous comment. Ranked Choice is an improvement, yes. Though, I think it still is too easy to push the winning vote to the more polar candidates. If the centrist doesn’t rile up passionate supporters (cuz what centrist does), they are more likely to be dropped in the first round even though they were ranked 1 or 2 for nearly everyone. I prefer Approval voting as my ideal alternative. It does tend to push more toward center, but of the idea is true democratic representation, then that would be the natural result. But anything is better than FPTP.
geissi@feddit.org 4 days ago
So if improvements are possible then the current situation can by definition not be perfect, right?
kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 4 days ago
As I said elsewhere, if there is only two parties/candidates running for each of these seats and the districts are divided this way then there is no functional difference between Ranked Choice, Approval, Proportional, or First Past The Post. The results would be 100% identical in any of those systems. In this specific situation, the result is “perfect”, as it says. Under different circumstances, it would be less than perfect, but that is not how hypothetical work, my guy.
geissi@feddit.org 3 days ago
So, suppose these things were not immutable laws of nature, would a better representation the be possible?
If e.g. the candidates of our rectangle had 5 seats to compete for instead of one?
kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Your example is literally what is being illustrated. There is some disconnect you are suffering. There are 5 districts with 5 seats and depending on how you divide the districts, fairly or intentionally gerrymandered, you can get a fair outcome or outcomes that heavily favor one party.