Talk:Instant-runoff voting: Difference between revisions

The voters have indicated they have no preference. It doesn’t matter to them. Therefore, respectingRespecting the fairness of one voter - one vote, a random decision is a very good way to decide which candidate gets theirthat shared vote before any otherfirst. Of course, itgetting that shared vote first matters a great deal to the candidates. It could be the difference between winning and losing. But which of them deserves to get these votes first? The answer is, they all do. They all want to have the votes that come with the equal rank before anyone else. The fair thing to do is to choose one of them by random draw at the very start of counting (RVH them). It’s all or nothing to avoid vote splitting. Vote splitting is what election campaigns do best because IRV rewards them for trying. The voters deserve better. A voter who thinks their favorite candidates are tied, doesn’t deserve being set upon by those very same candidates when the voter is unsure about who can win or which one the other voters think is better. Voters should not be made to guessget atthat thevote ballot boxfirst. Vote splitting makes for nasty business especially when the election is too close to call. Take that tried and true pressure tactic away from candidates and it’s a good tie for everyone. The question then becomes should candidates expend their campaign resources on telling voters what’s wrong with an opponent they are afraid will make them lose, or focus on what’s right about themselves compared to all the candidates? My improvement to IRV answers for the voters.