OK, done.

(I was searching to try  to find out if upvotes on here are anonymous.  😬)

Actually, real name accounts produce comments of lower quality than those made by pseudonyms:

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/01/real-names-dont-make-for-better-commenters-but-pseudonyms-do/251240/

https://web.archive.org/web/20160516101013/https://disqus.com/research/pseudonyms/

 

Note that there are other organizations promoting consensus voting systems, too, with the same proposed benefits:

• Better Choices for Democracy advocates Consensus Choice Voting, a Condorcet-compliant form of ranked-choice voting.
• STAR Voting Action advocates STAR Voting, a hybrid of cardinal and ranked systems.
• Equal Vote Coalition is an umbrella that advocates all of the above.

caveat: there's a disparity between intrinsic and instrumental preferences, in other words voters don't actually know what they want. 

There's a disparity between "utility" in the context of a voting system vs "utility" in the context of EA.  In other words, what voters want is not necessarily what best improves their actual wellbeing.  Is that the same disparity you're talking about, or something different?

quadratic voting has been pretty deeply debunked.

What do you mean by this?  What specific claims have been "debunked" and in what way?

Ranked Choice Voting is a good way to reduce polarization in politics, elect more popular (and less extreme) candidates, and increase competition. It would also reduce the power of Trump over the Republican Party, which could lead to more Congressional pushback. 

Since the form of RCV used in the US eliminates candidates bases on plurality tallies of first-choice votes in each round, it arguably does none of the above and just perpetuates the problems of our current system.  It does not fix vote-splitting or the spoiler effect, despite the claims of its proponents.

Ranked-choice systems that actually count all voter preferences ("Condorcet-compliant") would actually improve these things, as would cardinal systems like Approval Voting, STAR Voting, Balanced Approval, etc. that allow voters to evaluate each candidate independently.

Yeah, the decision to select the top three candidates and divide funds between them is pretty arbitrary (and unlike a standard political election) but I think most people would agree that counting all voter preferences in that process is better than counting some voters' preferences while discarding others'.

If you count all voter preferences, instead of only first-choice rankings, the set of top three winners is the same, but in a different order and with different proportions:

• SWP (33.7%) > EAAWF (33.1%) > RP (33.2%)

See https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/RzdKnBYe3jumrZxkB/giving-season-2025-announcement?commentId=ZjhgdhWQ2LQ6TL8kC 

In the future can you add these orgs?  They are similar to Center for Election Science:

• Better Choices for Democracy advocates Consensus Choice Voting, a Condorcet-compliant form of ranked-choice voting.
• STAR Voting Action advocates STAR Voting, a hybrid of cardinal and ranked systems.
• Equal Vote Coalition is an umbrella that advocates all of the above.