STAR is not easier to implement than ordinal voting methods in general, it may be easier to implement than IRV [0] in particular. Likewise, while IRV is not district summarizable, some ordinal methods are.
And outside of specialized circumstances that don’t apply to usual candidate elections, the additional information on STAR ballots compared to unforced preference ordinal ballots is noise of no consistent meaning.
Also, Arrows impossibility theorem applies to any balloting system that expresses ranked preferences and produces a ranked result, whether or not it provides additional information or compresses the available rankings for either the inputs or the result (typically, it applies to single winner election results which compress the results the same way FPTP ballots compress ballots—one first place and everyone else tied for not-first-place.)
[0] “RCV” is a name used by advocates to conflate IRV with ordinal methods generally, and accepted by some opponents of ordinal methods to conceal that their arguments apply only to IRV and not the broader class.
> STAR is not easier to implement than ordinal voting methods in general, it may be easier to implement than IRV [0] in particular. Likewise, while IRV is not district summarizable, some ordinal methods are.
Could you provide an example? Thanks in advance.
> Arrows impossibility theorem applies to any balloting system that expresses ranked preferences and produces a ranked result
My understanding is that Arrow's impossibility theorem does not apply to STAR or any other Cardinal Voting system. Is that incorrect?
And outside of specialized circumstances that don’t apply to usual candidate elections, the additional information on STAR ballots compared to unforced preference ordinal ballots is noise of no consistent meaning.
Also, Arrows impossibility theorem applies to any balloting system that expresses ranked preferences and produces a ranked result, whether or not it provides additional information or compresses the available rankings for either the inputs or the result (typically, it applies to single winner election results which compress the results the same way FPTP ballots compress ballots—one first place and everyone else tied for not-first-place.)
[0] “RCV” is a name used by advocates to conflate IRV with ordinal methods generally, and accepted by some opponents of ordinal methods to conceal that their arguments apply only to IRV and not the broader class.