look at it another way: a vote does not rank first, second, or third, but has an unordered "pick three" section, after which everyone else is ranked. this would have identical results to a top-three vote count, but potentially different results from single vote rcv.

i'm not sure what the full impact of this would be, just that my impulse is to avoid it

say in the above example, candidate D had 45 top-three votes, but only 10 were first choice. if three rcv processes are done, they are eliminated in the first round of the first and second processes, and those ten votes would be redistributed, creating a situation that wouldn't be possible otherwise

the people who ranked A would now have their first ranked votes be added to their 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵𝘩 ranked choice. this would continue until three candidates each had more than 50% of votes.

However, each of B, C, D, and E have more than 40 votes among them as either first, second, or third choice. In this situation, even though A has the most "first" rank votes, they do not have enough to go on to the second round.

in the current method, if candidate A has the most first-choice votes, they will "win" the first round.

in the more representational method, say out of 100 votes among five candidates, A has 40 votes as the first choice, but no votes for second or third.

for rcv to work with multiple winners 𝘹 the way it does with a single winner, it would need to attribute a vote to each top 𝘹 ranked candidates per ballot, rather than the top ranked only and choosing the winners from those tallies.

he’s still a nazi, just one of the good ones now

the extremely rough editing is because i didn't want to stare at these two freaks any longer than i had to

he's good

Which is why I think it is important to state, early and often, that trans rights are a red line for me (and I hope for many of you). Push Democrats to nominate someone who doesn't sit around doing podcasts where he nods along with anti-trans ghouls.