That's lovely.

Shots fired.

They accept any name as far as I can tell.

In practice, it doesn't, though.

It also gives you less information to work with.

If your choices are Picard, Dukat, Lore, and Winn Adami, you have to rank them 1-4.

Same situation if your choices are Picard, Riker, Sisko, and Data.

Right. That's IRV. Unfortunately, the math doesn't work out.

youtu.be/JtKAScORevQ

You still end up with dishonest voting to try and get the results you want.

It is better than plurality voting, but all the ranked systems still have favorite candidate betrayal as a problem.

But I also want one that removes the incentive to vote lesser evil (or strategically dishonestly if you prefer). I want one where I am always helping the person I want by voting for them (or ranking or scoring them higher).

Ranked choice doesn't do that.

And like you say, it is well known.

I want a system that offers more information about voter intent than the one we have now. Ranked absolutely does that.

Right, as the first link there says, it can refer to any of many systems where you rank your ballot.

Instant Runoff Voting is probably the one you mean, because RCV is the term used for that in the US and Canada, even though it is confusing.

Because it isn't as good as ranged or score voting. (I notice you still haven't clarified if you mean instant runoff or just any counting method involving ranking)

It is *absolutely* better than plurality/first past the post.

But if we are changing, which is hard enough, may as well do better?

Obviously, voting system changes are more important than term limits, but if we are doing that, we should definitely push for approval or range voting, not hobble ourselves with ranked choice. (I assume you mean instant runoff by that.)