I've been reading a lot about voting systems, and Score Voting seems like a pretty good system, but Equal Vote Coalition advocates STAR Voting (= "Score Then Automatic Runoff", previously SRV = "Score Runoff Voting") which adds an additional runoff stage, and I don't understand why, or whether it's actually an improvement or not.
They claim that STAR is only a "partial solution" and their addition of a runoff "answers the strategic voting criticisms" of Score, by reducing strategic bullet voting, because "you have an incentive to differentiate candidate scores in order to have a voice in the second step", but is this actually a problem that needs solving? Why would voters intentionally harm candidates that they actually like?
They claim that STAR "provides a majority win outcome", which sounds a lot like the majority criterion, but from what I've read:
- this criterion doesn't really apply to cardinal systems at all
- this is a bad criterion to meet, since it leads to "tyranny of the majority", where polarizing/controversial candidates win (who are liked by a slight majority, regardless of whether everyone else hates them) instead of consensus/compromise candidates (who are generally liked by everyone, even if not their first choice).
Does the runoff stage mean that STAR leads to majority tyranny, too?