Ranked choice voting alters the value and costs of voting for third party candidates. That enables third parties to run without taking votes from the nearest of the two dominant parties.
Sorta. It depends on how the second choices are distributed. It also depends on the relative popularity between the three candidates. Spoilers can and do happen under RCV, it’s just they’re confusing. Often times when you explain that a particular race had a spoiler—a losing candidate that changes the winner by running, all else being equal—people will argue that it wasn’t a spoiler for reasons that are either tautological or outside the definition of a spoiler.
Practically anything is better than “choose one,” but we’re still going to have a two party system unless we allow for more than one winner in any given election.
Ranked choice voting alters the value and costs of voting for third party candidates. That enables third parties to run without taking votes from the nearest of the two dominant parties.
Sorta. It depends on how the second choices are distributed. It also depends on the relative popularity between the three candidates. Spoilers can and do happen under RCV, it’s just they’re confusing. Often times when you explain that a particular race had a spoiler—a losing candidate that changes the winner by running, all else being equal—people will argue that it wasn’t a spoiler for reasons that are either tautological or outside the definition of a spoiler.
Anyway, RCV and approval often agree on the results, even including who should take 2nd, 3rd, and so on, but approval is simpler and won’t hides second preferences.
Practically anything is better than “choose one,” but we’re still going to have a two party system unless we allow for more than one winner in any given election.