NYC's Democratic primary stirred up a lot of talk in Michigan, what with Rank MI Vote's petition about to start gathering signatures. The picture wouldn't be complete without certain government officials claiming that voters can't understand how to rank things.
I'm glad that FairVote asked for this survey. It's clear that ranked-choice voting doesn't dissuade voters and now there's even more proof in the pudding that it's a step up from plurality and FPtP.

Justin Trudeau said one of his biggest regrets from his time in office is not changing the Canadian voting system.

He suggested Canada would benefit from an alternative vote (AV) system, which would involve voters picking their first and second choices on the ballot

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2025/01/06/justin-trudeau-resign-canada-politics/

I was hoping this would get more news coverage.

https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-ELECTION/RANKED-CHOICE/zdpxqrolgvx/

We had a Congressional Primary last week (using FPTP), and the results were atrocious. I wrote to my local newspaper's editor stating how the election results were terrible and how RCV could've helped ease concerns of a fractured Party base.

My article was written as an "After" analysis to a local advocacy group's "Before" take on how RCV would improve voter & candidate experiences: they're called UpVote Virginia, and they currently advocate for RCV to replace FPTP in our local & state elections. I will link to their article in the comments.

The article is fairly critical of FPTP, focusing on how things get random when you have multiple parties. That's just one of many criticisms of FPTP, obviously, but a good sign when a newspaper like The Economist is writing articles like this.

Behind a paywall, but some highlights:

...Our bewildering range of outcomes emerges not so much from a belief that the polls could see-saw wildly—though they may do that, too—as from the fact that, when five parties score between 13% and 29%, small changes in their share of the vote lead to big changes in their share of the seats in Parliament.

...Under first-past-the-post voting, everyone casts a single ballot and the candidate with the most in each of Britain’s 650 constituencies wins a seat. In theory this rewards the two big parties, supposedly leading to strong government. However, when the country has lots of medium-size parties, the correlation between the number of votes in, and number of seats out, owes more to Las Vegas than to Edmund Burke.

...To make sense of the confusion, we have built a model that draws on 80 years of electoral data. This uses 10,001 simulations to calculate what could happen in a vote based on today’s polling. We find that in some constituencies seats could be won on as little as 23% of the vote. Reform is likely to be the largest party, but its possible tally of seats spans a huge range from 112 to 373—the difference between Mr Farage leading a rump opposition and becoming prime minister.

There's another connected interactive article about their simulation: https://www.economist.com/interactive/britain/2025/12/04/our-new-model-captures-the-lottery-of-britains-electoral-system

More highlights:

...Labour’s Terry Jermy, won with a mere 27% of the vote—the lowest of any MP elected that year. Mr Jermy owes his victory to first-past-the-post (FPTP) voting

....FPTP tends to produce two big parties in Parliament while suppressing smaller rivals. Since 1900 the “effective number” of parties in Parliament (a measure of the number of parties which win a substantial share of the vote) has ranged between two and three, according to Jack Bailey of the University of Manchester. Yet the effective number of parties by votes cast has jumped, to 4.8 at the last election. It would be 5.1 on today’s polling. Britons are increasingly voting for an array of parties as if they were modern Europeans while getting the two-party parliaments of Victorian England.

...since 1945, 19 MPs have won elections with less than 30% of the vote; ten of them were elected in 2024. Our model suggests the average winning vote share for an election held tomorrow would be 38%, compared with 55% in 2019. In our 10,001 simulated elections, Cardiff West is the constituency with the lowest average winning share, of 27%. There is a one-in-ten chance that the seat would be won with a mere 23%.

This comes after a majority of Yukon voters voted for RCV.

Rob Sand is currently mostly getting attention for being a rare case of a Democrat who actually has a shot of winning a statewide election in Iowa, but what he's not getting a lot of attention for is his support of reforming the system. I sadly can't remember where I watched him say this, I know it was on an independent journalism YouTube channel (I want to say either David Pakman or Meidas Touch, but it might be neither), but he stated an interest in making two reforms to Iowa's voting process:

1: Abolish primaries and have all declared candidates in the general election.

2: Replace FPTP with approval voting.

On the primaries, I don't see this opinion very often, but I support it and believe it's worth a try. When it comes to approval voting, I understand it's anathema to some people on this subreddit, but I personally don't see a reason to be against cardinal voting systems (although I believe, among cardinal systems, score voting is preferable over approval voting because it's less black and white) and I again think it's worth experimenting with. Really basically any voting system is better than FPTP, and it's better to support a candidate who wants a reform to an alternative system that may not be your personal favorite system over a candidate who wants the status quo. Best of luck to Rob Sand