With the 0-5 star ranking that lets you rank more than one candidate the same if you want to, results are much more likely to accurately reflect the priorities of voters than straight ranking that doesn’t.
If for example I give the far left candidate 5 stars, the center-left candidate 3 stars and both the centrist and the center-right candidate 2 stars, then the result of that round will more accurately reflect my priorities than if I had to rank two choices I (dis)like equally differently.
If I give the communist party 5 stars and the moderates 1 star, I’m still giving the moderates points that might cause them to enter the final when the communists could have won. In order to give the communists the absolute best chance of winning, I should give everyone else 0 stars. This is a bad idea if the reactionaries are in a decent place to win, but if I think the parties I hate are definitely going to lose, I should vote dishonesty. If everyone does this, it might cost us all the election.
In instant runoff, I don’t have to worry about dishonesty or strategic voting. I just put my second preference second, and there’s no way it can hurt my first preference. I vote for the way I actually feel.
Yeah, that’s not actually how it works… You don’t get to see and react to everyone else’s ballots and if you’re not voting honestly, you’re fucking yourself and others like you.
Which is something you can do on purpose with eqaul ease in instant runoff and run a greater risk of the spoiler effect happening without you meaning to. Much smaller than with fptp, but still greater than with STAR.
What advantages does STAR have that instant runoff doesn’t?
With the 0-5 star ranking that lets you rank more than one candidate the same if you want to, results are much more likely to accurately reflect the priorities of voters than straight ranking that doesn’t.
If for example I give the far left candidate 5 stars, the center-left candidate 3 stars and both the centrist and the center-right candidate 2 stars, then the result of that round will more accurately reflect my priorities than if I had to rank two choices I (dis)like equally differently.
If I give the communist party 5 stars and the moderates 1 star, I’m still giving the moderates points that might cause them to enter the final when the communists could have won. In order to give the communists the absolute best chance of winning, I should give everyone else 0 stars. This is a bad idea if the reactionaries are in a decent place to win, but if I think the parties I hate are definitely going to lose, I should vote dishonesty. If everyone does this, it might cost us all the election.
In instant runoff, I don’t have to worry about dishonesty or strategic voting. I just put my second preference second, and there’s no way it can hurt my first preference. I vote for the way I actually feel.
Yeah, that’s not actually how it works… You don’t get to see and react to everyone else’s ballots and if you’re not voting honestly, you’re fucking yourself and others like you.
Which is something you can do on purpose with eqaul ease in instant runoff and run a greater risk of the spoiler effect happening without you meaning to. Much smaller than with fptp, but still greater than with STAR.