I agree completely, they’re much better for all of the reasons you stated. I’m saying they’re Ranked Choice in a dumbed down sense, because it’s a bit too complicated for many people to really grasp the specifics. You are still functionally giving your choices a rank, and that’s the easy to explain part for most people to get about STAR and Ranked Robin. So I’m making an appeal to something most people are familiar with already to really sell the two other systems.
I’d say it’s important to use the word “rating” when talking about STAR. This is actually by design. Introduce it to people by saying “Give the politician an honest rating 0-5 stars”. And if they’re all rated as ones and zeroes, I don’t see a problem.
STAR can also be in a ranked format as well, with Ranked STAR being mathematically equivalent to regular STAR, but I agree that regular STAR leans more towards a rating structure.
STAR uses ratings, not Rankings. There is Ranked Robin, but that’s not STAR.
Ranked Robin has more complexity in the count, but the good thing is that it always elects the Condorcet winner, because he sort of invented the system. Well, an early version. Ranked Robin is the formalized modern version, and you could argue that since equal ranks are allowed in Ranked Robin, it’s closer to ratings.
I used the word formalized because STAR and Ranked Robin both have specific written procedures for the ballot appearance, the counting, and basically everything else you need to run an election using the system.
It makes adoption easier when you don’t have to design anything, just follow directions for a fairly representative election.
I agree completely, they’re much better for all of the reasons you stated. I’m saying they’re Ranked Choice in a dumbed down sense, because it’s a bit too complicated for many people to really grasp the specifics. You are still functionally giving your choices a rank, and that’s the easy to explain part for most people to get about STAR and Ranked Robin. So I’m making an appeal to something most people are familiar with already to really sell the two other systems.
I’d say it’s important to use the word “rating” when talking about STAR. This is actually by design. Introduce it to people by saying “Give the politician an honest rating 0-5 stars”. And if they’re all rated as ones and zeroes, I don’t see a problem.
STAR can also be in a ranked format as well, with Ranked STAR being mathematically equivalent to regular STAR, but I agree that regular STAR leans more towards a rating structure.
STAR uses ratings, not Rankings. There is Ranked Robin, but that’s not STAR.
Ranked Robin has more complexity in the count, but the good thing is that it always elects the Condorcet winner, because he sort of invented the system. Well, an early version. Ranked Robin is the formalized modern version, and you could argue that since equal ranks are allowed in Ranked Robin, it’s closer to ratings.
I used the word formalized because STAR and Ranked Robin both have specific written procedures for the ballot appearance, the counting, and basically everything else you need to run an election using the system.
It makes adoption easier when you don’t have to design anything, just follow directions for a fairly representative election.