I don't really care about voting in Portland, but as a teacher, I am fascinated by how well-conceived this video is at explaining an inherently tricky concept 👏👏👏
This explainer is brilliant. We've had ranked-choice voting in Cambridge, Mass., for a while, but I've never seen such a terrific (and fun) breakdown of exactly how it works.
Of note, Cambridge has a slightly different rule for redistributing surplus votes from winning candidates. Instead of redistributing fractional votes, the threshold is rounded up to the next whole vote, so that the surplus is a whole number. The ballots for that candidate are shuffled, and a number n is calculated by dividing the number of ballots for that candidate by the number of surplus ballots and rounding down. Every nth ballot is then redistributed, but ballots that do not have another valid selection are skipped and will not be redistributed unless there are no remaining ballots for the winning candidate with a valid next preference.
This is how we do our Federal Senate voting in Australia. It usually takes days if not weeks to calculate the 6 winners for each state, and the ballot papers sometimes are more than a metre wide. It means that some candidates with very, very few first votes can get elected. Sometimes a good system, but sometimes the results are very strange.
I am so excited to see this in action. Hopefully the rest of the state and then maybe the nation will get on board. This is the only way we get out of a two party system.
Look at how Alaska chooses their governor. I think that would be a great system for president or other single winner like senators. They don't have party primaries. They just have 1 big primary vote for everyone. Then the top 4 go through to the second round when they have a ranked choice vote with those 4. You could get 2 D and 2 R, or you could get 3rd party or independents in the mix.
Not necessarily, only a few countries use this system, most use simpler forms of proportional representation like party list. But RCV is fine, certainly an improvement over FPTP.
What about a Scoring system instead? Slightly more fair than a Ranking system, and a lot simpler :D Candidate A: Average 3.2/4 Candidate B: Average 2.8/4 Candidate C: Average 1.5/4
It’s a bit misleading to call this one of a kind. Ranked choice has proven to be more democratic of a system and has been implemented in many other places. Good explanation otherwise though!
Great explainer but leaves a question unanswered: suppose chocolate did NOT accrue enough viable votes to surpass the winning threshold at the end (no votes for it from old-fashioned)?
The counting is complicated but the voting is simple. You just rank the candidates in order of preference. You don't have to think about tactical voting by guessing who other people will vote for because if your first or second preference gets eliminated your vote gets reallocated to your next choice!
Great explanation of a rational voting system! I hope to see something similar appear on the National scale sometime within my lifetime. First Past the Post clearly isn’t representing all citizens well.
This is a pretty good video, This isnt overly odd, we have a Similar system in the Australian state of Tasmania & ACT. The diffence is Tasmania Elects 7 members per discteict & ACT elects 5 members. In Australia we also number our candidates which means theirs only one row and not a big ballot of bubbles.
CGPGrey has a fantastic video on the first past the post voting system, and it boggles my mind that we dont use these alternatives to what we have now. Great job on your explanation!
This was helpful, but I wish a tad bit more time had been spent on helping people understand the "fancy math" part of this process. Is there any way to do another video with more info on that? Great work, at any rate. Let's hope Portland proves that Ranked Choice Voting is good for democracy. (Please god, keep the fringe quack candidates away.)
Important question: Where did those doughnuts source from in the opening scene? Cause... YUM. Aside (lol) thanks for the informative and helpful lesson.
Sydney, Australia is having it's local council elections this weekend with the same system! Congrats Portland, you're gonna get the candidates that make the most people happy! Make sure you all vote with your hearts, since there are no wasted votes in ranked choice
This system sounds good to me! I guess the draw back is that everyone needs to do their research on all candidates in order to rank their ballots properly, and that might be really difficult to do for most people.
What ultimately matters to an average voter is just to rank your vote. Simple. One does not need to actually know the vote counting process of RCV. But, it's this objectively-complicated part (that voters do not actually need to think about?) that anti-RCV people are using to argue against RCV.
This doesn't seem like a very good voting system. For example, if everyone's second choice is powdered sugar, but no one's first choice is, it gets eliminated, even if every other donut is highly controversial.
This is an interesting system, and it'll be cool to see how it plays out. The redistribution of the surplus is interesting, but it makes sense why you need that to ensure that one popular candidate doesn't just lock up all the votes with a huge excess. One thing that's bugged me about RCV implementations that I've seen to date is the absence of a "no confidence" option. I used to be part of a volunteer organization that elected its officers using single transferable ranked choice voting, with the option to vote no confidence after a point and keep your ballot from going to any other candidate while still having it count for the threshold. A lot of the systems I see now seem to eliminate your vote and lower the threshold if all your votes become nonviable. I'm curious how that plays out in this system.
I am fine with the Transferable Vote.... but I am not a fan of the "elimination" rules. It seems to me, to create a system, where the candidate who is "no one's first choice" can end up as a very popular "third" choice. Instead, what should happen is almost the same, except when the second seat moves to consideration, the first candidate is "removed" from the other ballots, and the process repeats. The only way a candidate should be "nonviable" for a seat, is if they already hold one.
STV has finally made it out of Ireland & Australia! But in Australia (where I live), we just number boxes next to the candidate or party. We don’t do this ugly table.
The threshold is the minimum number of votes required to be in the top N, where N is the number of seats. In the case of three seats, if a candidate has 25% of the vote plus one, its impossible for more than two other candidates to have a higher percentage of the vote than them. If two others each had the same 25% plus one, the most a 4th candidate could have is 25% minus three votes.
there are actually two ways to calculate the threshold used for this method. The first, the Droop quota, is the one in this video. The other is the one you mentioned, called the Hare quota. Each has its advantages and disadvantages
What do you mean by regular RCV/STV? for single winner you need 50%, 1/(seats+1). It follows that two seats is 33% and so on. You never need all the votes to get a seat, so the Droop quota is more fair, otherwise you get quirky results
No it isn't. In Single Transferable Voting in multiple seat constituencies, the threshold (quota) is set so that if you have X available seats, then only X people could make (not necessarily exceed) the quota. If you had X=3 seats, but set the quota at 25% then four people could make the quota. With 25%+1 vote, the three winners between them would have 75%+3 votes (after transfers have been worked out), leaving at most 25%-3 votes to the remaining candidate, so they could meet the quota. The confusion may arise because of the transferring of votes from the excess of successful candidates. Therefore the difference between a threshold (you must exceed this percentage) and the quota - which is what remains in your bundle post the transfers of your excess, becomes more important, as it influences the outcome of the final seat.
It's pretty much single transferable vote with a Droop quota, but ranked-choice voting is a better known term in the United States. The mayor will also be elected with ranked-choice voting. And the expression my wife gave me when I mentioned "Droop quota" told me why that's not being used as a term.
Old fashioned was going to lose in stv even though he was more loved than apple fritter in general(minor donuts loved old fashioned as 2nd choice than frit)
So frit is like "that donut" that only the people that like it likes. Means extreme or single agenda or fringe party will weed out themselves in the process but they can choose others. And they cut the "overvotes" so less vote is wasted.
I think i have a better, more fair method - all combinations are considered permutations. all candidates conversely are ranked by first position place. anyone with no first position votes is at the end of the list, sorted by second position, if no second, at bottom by third and so forth. Now, all votes are expanded to the most common permutation. If you voted for only four candidates; whatever order others ranked other candidates- whatever the most popular combination is- yours gets propagated to a full ticket. If there are no permutations to propagate to, you inherit the most popular order of remaining candidates demoted to the bottom of your tree. Now, every iteration we remove one candidate and collapse their permutations by simply removing that element in its position and moving your vote to the identical category. We continue this until we have a simple majority winner in first place- so the election can, in fact, end after simply counting first position votes- or there are only two candidates left, in which case we pick the winner. If there are more candidates than sane permutation length based on compute efficiency(let’s say 12) we create the ranking for the first 12 and then for the second 12, overlapping by one candidate, and then run the cycle above for the lowest ranked candidates promoting the winner into the lowest ranked position formerly occupied by the last candidate in the higher ranks. In the event of write in candidates, they too are fairly ranked in this manner. Any and all voters can specify as few or as many candidates as they like.
I don’t understand the rationale of the .25 vote. A first choice is worth 4x a second choice, but then all other choices 2nd through eighth are worth the same .25 vote? In some strange way, it seems voters are incentivized to place their least popular top-three candidate as their top choice to help boost that candidate’s outcomes. Truly bizarre.
No, it's not like that. All votes count as one vote, they aren't worth more or less. The .25% is just be chance because of the quota calculation. In this case the quota was total votes / 4 +1. This is how many votes are needed to win. This was 39/4+1=10.75. If they had had 40 voters instead then the quota would have been 11 so there wouldn't have been any spare votes to reallocate. Or if the 1st donut had got 12 votes then there would have been 1 vote to be reallocate.
To be clear, it's not _always_ going to be .25 of a vote. It just worked out that way in OP's example, because they got 11 votes and they needed 10.75 to win, so .25 was the excess. The point of redistributing the excess is to remove a bad incentive. Imagine if the threshold to win was 100, and a particular candidate was very popular and got 150. Those 50 excess votes are useless to them! It doesn't make them win harder. They already won at 100, so they don't need the other 50. This means that if you're smart, you'll go "this very popular candidate is definitely going to win and doesn't need my vote, so I'll skip them entirely and give all my preferences to less popular candidates who I also like, to boost them up instead." But if EVERYONE tries to play the system like that, then the very popular candidate will end up losing with 0 votes because everyone assumed everyone else would vote for them! So we need the 50 excess votes to still count somehow. In the fixed version, where we redistribute the excess votes, the number we send to your next preference depends on both the _percentage_ of people who voted that way, and the _number_ of excess votes. If they need 100 to win and they get 105, then there's 5 votes to redistribute (and we'll carve those 5 votes up into a bunch of micro-votes based on the percentages: e.g. if 30% of chocolate voters wanted glazed next, then 30% of those 5 excess votes = 1.5 votes get sent to glazed). If they need 100 to win and they get 230, then there's 130 votes to redistribute (and 30% of 130 = 39 votes go to glazed). This makes it much safer to vote for a popular sure-to-win candidate - the more they win by, the more value your 2nd preference gets.
That isn't how that should work though. If no one wants powdered sugar as a first choice, but they all agree it's a solid second choice, then it shouldn't be eliminated.
I would give this two thumbs up if I could. Probably because ranked choice voting (a thing every person in the world needs) is being represented by dessert (a thing every sane person in the world wants).
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
the reporter: how can I convince my boss to buy me donuts 🍩🤣
I don't really care about voting in Portland, but as a teacher, I am fascinated by how well-conceived this video is at explaining an inherently tricky concept 👏👏👏
Bravo to whomever had to 'eliminate' all of the donuts for this video! Great explanation.
America discovers ranked choice voting in the most American way possible
This explainer is brilliant. We've had ranked-choice voting in Cambridge, Mass., for a while, but I've never seen such a terrific (and fun) breakdown of exactly how it works.
Do you have single member or multi member?
Because single member is not proportional, while multi member is.
Yeah, I laughed at 'one-of-a-kind' as it's how Australia elects its upper house in both federal and state elections.
Of note, Cambridge has a slightly different rule for redistributing surplus votes from winning candidates. Instead of redistributing fractional votes, the threshold is rounded up to the next whole vote, so that the surplus is a whole number. The ballots for that candidate are shuffled, and a number n is calculated by dividing the number of ballots for that candidate by the number of surplus ballots and rounding down. Every nth ballot is then redistributed, but ballots that do not have another valid selection are skipped and will not be redistributed unless there are no remaining ballots for the winning candidate with a valid next preference.
This is how we do our Federal Senate voting in Australia. It usually takes days if not weeks to calculate the 6 winners for each state, and the ballot papers sometimes are more than a metre wide. It means that some candidates with very, very few first votes can get elected. Sometimes a good system, but sometimes the results are very strange.
I am so excited to see this in action. Hopefully the rest of the state and then maybe the nation will get on board. This is the only way we get out of a two party system.
Look at how Alaska chooses their governor. I think that would be a great system for president or other single winner like senators. They don't have party primaries. They just have 1 big primary vote for everyone. Then the top 4 go through to the second round when they have a ranked choice vote with those 4. You could get 2 D and 2 R, or you could get 3rd party or independents in the mix.
Not necessarily, only a few countries use this system, most use simpler forms of proportional representation like party list. But RCV is fine, certainly an improvement over FPTP.
How is this gonna help 3rd parties? This won't stop both sides from continuing to say "vote for me #1 unless you want the other guy to win"
What about a Scoring system instead? Slightly more fair than a Ranking system, and a lot simpler :D
Candidate A: Average 3.2/4
Candidate B: Average 2.8/4
Candidate C: Average 1.5/4
Ranked choice voting is actually on the ballot for all of Oregon this November!! Hopefully Oregon will vote yes.
This is similar to how Ireland votes. But we cal Single Transferable Vote rather than rank choice
This is what the rest of the world just calls STV (Single Transferable Vote, because everyone gets one vote, which is transferable).
a wider adoption of ranked choice voting is in the best interests of everyone, except maybe for the people already in office.
It’s a bit misleading to call this one of a kind. Ranked choice has proven to be more democratic of a system and has been implemented in many other places. Good explanation otherwise though!
Incredibly informative and fun to watch! Thank you for this invaluable resource.
Missed opportunity for a pun. "The maple bar was eclair'ed a winner"
Relevant to my interests. On a number of fronts. Well done 👏👏👏🍩
The Maple bar has truly earned the seat.
So well done! 🎉🎉🎉
Great explainer but leaves a question unanswered: suppose chocolate did NOT accrue enough viable votes to surpass the winning threshold at the end (no votes for it from old-fashioned)?
This is how we vote in Australia. Local elections can be different but we often have group voting as well to make it easier.
The counting is complicated but the voting is simple. You just rank the candidates in order of preference. You don't have to think about tactical voting by guessing who other people will vote for because if your first or second preference gets eliminated your vote gets reallocated to your next choice!
Great explanation of a rational voting system! I hope to see something similar appear on the National scale sometime within my lifetime.
First Past the Post clearly isn’t representing all citizens well.
This is a pretty good video, This isnt overly odd, we have a Similar system in the Australian state of Tasmania & ACT. The diffence is Tasmania Elects 7 members per discteict & ACT elects 5 members. In Australia we also number our candidates which means theirs only one row and not a big ballot of bubbles.
CGPGrey has a fantastic video on the first past the post voting system, and it boggles my mind that we dont use these alternatives to what we have now.
Great job on your explanation!
I'm voting Boston Cream party.
While I am slightly less confused than before, for some reason I sure would love a maple bar right now!
This is some excellent journalism 😂
Awesome video! Much luck to the election candidates from Hamburg, Germany 🍩🥨
brilliant, perfect explanation ... and now I want a doughnut!!
I've been fighting for election reform for 20+ years and you explain the STV system brilliantly.
Really like this system, but isn't 25% a little low to declare an initial victor?
This is a great video
This was helpful, but I wish a tad bit more time had been spent on helping people understand the "fancy math" part of this process. Is there any way to do another video with more info on that? Great work, at any rate. Let's hope Portland proves that Ranked Choice Voting is good for democracy. (Please god, keep the fringe quack candidates away.)
Important question: Where did those doughnuts source from in the opening scene? Cause... YUM. Aside (lol) thanks for the informative and helpful lesson.
Sydney, Australia is having it's local council elections this weekend with the same system! Congrats Portland, you're gonna get the candidates that make the most people happy! Make sure you all vote with your hearts, since there are no wasted votes in ranked choice
"MMmm...Donuts." - Homer J Simpson
This system sounds good to me! I guess the draw back is that everyone needs to do their research on all candidates in order to rank their ballots properly, and that might be really difficult to do for most people.
Such a well made video, kudos.
Very well done!
Great video on RCV
Ireland uses this system. Nothing too radical.
Heart PDX. Wonderful video Teresa Mahoney!!!
So glad this is happening, and in my hometown to boot!
Expensing those donuts in the office. 🧠🧠🧠
What ultimately matters to an average voter is just to rank your vote. Simple.
One does not need to actually know the vote counting process of RCV. But, it's this objectively-complicated part (that voters do not actually need to think about?) that anti-RCV people are using to argue against RCV.
Wow. What a fair system.
this is such a good idea
No Chocolate-Iced Donut with Holland Cream filling? Blasphemy! ... Excellent explanation! I just hope that the voters will figure it out.
This was helpful and clever, thank you.
Love this system!
This was an awesome explainer, nice work. And now I am craving a donut… 😂
Cool 😎
Elections and donuts!
A delicious combination!
This doesn't seem like a very good voting system. For example, if everyone's second choice is powdered sugar, but no one's first choice is, it gets eliminated, even if every other donut is highly controversial.
This looks like such a fun video to make
I'm confused how 25% was reached as the value of a surplus vote
I still don't understand, but I like donuts.
Nothing CGP didn't explain to my generation 10 years ago. Now that all of us are old enough to vote, we voted for a better system.
They eliminated powdered sugar!!! Wtf???
Now we do the state!!
Old fashioned, maple bar, and chocolate! Heck yeah what a trio
I mean this makes total sense but I mean this is how my entire country has done elections for a long time now so it's not complicated for me.
Makes a lot of sense. Can we get state and federal representation to also follow this type of system, please?
Lol nobody talking about eating the confetti at the end
Donuts are always a great way to teach the population complex voting systems. This is great!
Finally!
This is an interesting system, and it'll be cool to see how it plays out. The redistribution of the surplus is interesting, but it makes sense why you need that to ensure that one popular candidate doesn't just lock up all the votes with a huge excess.
One thing that's bugged me about RCV implementations that I've seen to date is the absence of a "no confidence" option. I used to be part of a volunteer organization that elected its officers using single transferable ranked choice voting, with the option to vote no confidence after a point and keep your ballot from going to any other candidate while still having it count for the threshold. A lot of the systems I see now seem to eliminate your vote and lower the threshold if all your votes become nonviable. I'm curious how that plays out in this system.
Those are some solid donut choices.
So it's just Single Transferable Vote? Why do we keep making new names for existing systems?
I am fine with the Transferable Vote.... but I am not a fan of the "elimination" rules.
It seems to me, to create a system, where the candidate who is "no one's first choice" can end up as a very popular "third" choice. Instead, what should happen is almost the same, except when the second seat moves to consideration, the first candidate is "removed" from the other ballots, and the process repeats.
The only way a candidate should be "nonviable" for a seat, is if they already hold one.
Ranked choice voting looks like a blessing compared to first past the post. Imagine a candidate with 20% of the vote winning.
What happens if multiple candidates win at the same time?
The closest thing to actual democracy America is ever going to get. I'm all for it!
STV has finally made it out of Ireland & Australia! But in Australia (where I live), we just number boxes next to the candidate or party. We don’t do this ugly table.
This video has just made me hungry for donuts
Fabulous explanation.. now if we could only get 100% of the voting population to get out and vote 🎉
I shouldnt be trusted with voting if my choices were cake, filled and powder sugar 😭😭
I wish we could expense these delicious donuts!
Hold on, I've got an idea!
Is the treshold set by law? Because in a regular RCV the treshold is 1/number of seats. So in this case it would be 1/3.
The threshold is the minimum number of votes required to be in the top N, where N is the number of seats. In the case of three seats, if a candidate has 25% of the vote plus one, its impossible for more than two other candidates to have a higher percentage of the vote than them. If two others each had the same 25% plus one, the most a 4th candidate could have is 25% minus three votes.
there are actually two ways to calculate the threshold used for this method. The first, the Droop quota, is the one in this video. The other is the one you mentioned, called the Hare quota. Each has its advantages and disadvantages
What do you mean by regular RCV/STV? for single winner you need 50%, 1/(seats+1). It follows that two seats is 33% and so on. You never need all the votes to get a seat, so the Droop quota is more fair, otherwise you get quirky results
No, it is set by the formula used: either the Droop or Hare quota.
No it isn't.
In Single Transferable Voting in multiple seat constituencies, the threshold (quota) is set so that if you have X available seats, then only X people could make (not necessarily exceed) the quota.
If you had X=3 seats, but set the quota at 25% then four people could make the quota.
With 25%+1 vote, the three winners between them would have 75%+3 votes (after transfers have been worked out), leaving at most 25%-3 votes to the remaining candidate, so they could meet the quota.
The confusion may arise because of the transferring of votes from the excess of successful candidates. Therefore the difference between a threshold (you must exceed this percentage) and the quota - which is what remains in your bundle post the transfers of your excess, becomes more important, as it influences the outcome of the final seat.
How does this voting system differ from a Single transferable vote (STV)?
That is exactly what this is.
It's pretty much single transferable vote with a Droop quota, but ranked-choice voting is a better known term in the United States. The mayor will also be elected with ranked-choice voting. And the expression my wife gave me when I mentioned "Droop quota" told me why that's not being used as a term.
It doesn't. Different name, same basic system.
Old fashioned was going to lose in stv even though he was more loved than apple fritter in general(minor donuts loved old fashioned as 2nd choice than frit)
So frit is like "that donut" that only the people that like it likes. Means extreme or single agenda or fringe party will weed out themselves in the process but they can choose others. And they cut the "overvotes" so less vote is wasted.
This is just preferential voting; Australia has used this in elections since 1901
I think i have a better, more fair method - all combinations are considered permutations. all candidates conversely are ranked by first position place. anyone with no first position votes is at the end of the list, sorted by second position, if no second, at bottom by third and so forth.
Now, all votes are expanded to the most common permutation. If you voted for only four candidates; whatever order others ranked other candidates- whatever the most popular combination is- yours gets propagated to a full ticket. If there are no permutations to propagate to, you inherit the most popular order of remaining candidates demoted to the bottom of your tree.
Now, every iteration we remove one candidate and collapse their permutations by simply removing that element in its position and moving your vote to the identical category. We continue this until we have a simple majority winner in first place- so the election can, in fact, end after simply counting first position votes- or there are only two candidates left, in which case we pick the winner.
If there are more candidates than sane permutation length based on compute efficiency(let’s say 12) we create the ranking for the first 12 and then for the second 12, overlapping by one candidate, and then run the cycle above for the lowest ranked candidates promoting the winner into the lowest ranked position formerly occupied by the last candidate in the higher ranks.
In the event of write in candidates, they too are fairly ranked in this manner. Any and all voters can specify as few or as many candidates as they like.
None of the three winners were even among my top 10 choices (I wrote in for crūller). 😔
This is literally just Single Transferable Vote…?
You bit into it at the end while it had confetti on it 🤢
This means that I'm gonna have to stop at Dunkin' Donuts today for some Chocolate Cream Filled Donuts
I want those donuts
Interesting that you managed to elect my acceptable compromise doughnuts.
2:28 "Boo that was my first choice" hahaha
HOLY COW. City Council election night news is going to be so confusing
I don’t understand the rationale of the .25 vote.
A first choice is worth 4x a second choice, but then all other choices 2nd through eighth are worth the same .25 vote?
In some strange way, it seems voters are incentivized to place their least popular top-three candidate as their top choice to help boost that candidate’s outcomes.
Truly bizarre.
No, it's not like that. All votes count as one vote, they aren't worth more or less. The .25% is just be chance because of the quota calculation. In this case the quota was total votes / 4 +1. This is how many votes are needed to win. This was 39/4+1=10.75. If they had had 40 voters instead then the quota would have been 11 so there wouldn't have been any spare votes to reallocate. Or if the 1st donut had got 12 votes then there would have been 1 vote to be reallocate.
Watch again, you got it wrong.
To be clear, it's not _always_ going to be .25 of a vote. It just worked out that way in OP's example, because they got 11 votes and they needed 10.75 to win, so .25 was the excess.
The point of redistributing the excess is to remove a bad incentive.
Imagine if the threshold to win was 100, and a particular candidate was very popular and got 150. Those 50 excess votes are useless to them! It doesn't make them win harder. They already won at 100, so they don't need the other 50. This means that if you're smart, you'll go "this very popular candidate is definitely going to win and doesn't need my vote, so I'll skip them entirely and give all my preferences to less popular candidates who I also like, to boost them up instead."
But if EVERYONE tries to play the system like that, then the very popular candidate will end up losing with 0 votes because everyone assumed everyone else would vote for them!
So we need the 50 excess votes to still count somehow.
In the fixed version, where we redistribute the excess votes, the number we send to your next preference depends on both the _percentage_ of people who voted that way, and the _number_ of excess votes. If they need 100 to win and they get 105, then there's 5 votes to redistribute (and we'll carve those 5 votes up into a bunch of micro-votes based on the percentages: e.g. if 30% of chocolate voters wanted glazed next, then 30% of those 5 excess votes = 1.5 votes get sent to glazed). If they need 100 to win and they get 230, then there's 130 votes to redistribute (and 30% of 130 = 39 votes go to glazed). This makes it much safer to vote for a popular sure-to-win candidate - the more they win by, the more value your 2nd preference gets.
That isn't how that should work though. If no one wants powdered sugar as a first choice, but they all agree it's a solid second choice, then it shouldn't be eliminated.
this is how voting in Australia works
The most important question went unanswered… whose donuts were used to produce this video?
Quite similar to the Falklands and Northern Ireland's systems
Are those annies donuts!?
Neat
I would give this two thumbs up if I could. Probably because ranked choice voting (a thing every person in the world needs) is being represented by dessert (a thing every sane person in the world wants).
One day Donuts will turn into a staple for elections
It’s literally just preferential voting
multi-winner ranked choice voting is just STV with a different name