The only downside is having to hear politicians ask for 5 stars in every speech!
Suppose you are left, and there are three candidate, left, center, right.
Honestly you would rank then as 5, 3, 1. But center candidate is better for you than right. So you are going to vote 5, 5, 1. So STAR voting is effectively an approval voting.
https://clayshentrup.medium.com/strategy-with-star-voting-an...
> But center candidate is better for you than right. So you are going to vote 5, 5, 1. So STAR voting is effectively an approval voting.
Obviously not true. If you did that, and left and center make it to the runoff, your vote has zero power. And also flawed for other reasons I discuss in that blog link.
Ranking requires far less brain power than a rating system would.
Maybe the energy expenditure between the two is small for the HN group but for the general public, the aversion to doing the mental work would be enough to dramatically reduce turnout.
This goes for all countries, not just America.
Not to mention how easy it is to spread lies for something as simplistic as FPTP. The more complicated a system is, the easier it’ll be to spread lies about it.
Rating is simpler than ranking in every way we can measure, from rates of ballot spoilage, to average time taken to complete a ballot.
https://medium.com/election-science/star-voting-is-simpler-t...
https://www.rangevoting.org/Complexity
Most obviously, ranking is effectively a bubble sort, О(n^2), whereas rating is just two passes: 1. Get the max and min. 2. Normalize, thus O(n).
And Approval Voting, technically rating on a 0-1 binary scale, is arguably even simpler than the status quo.
> Most obviously, ranking is effectively a bubble sort, О(n^2), whereas rating is just two passes: 1. Get the max and min. 2. Normalize, thus O(n).
is meaningless to me: rating is impossible, because it's asking me for numbers that I just don't have.