One argument Rankers like to make against Cardinals is that many cardinal systems lack a “majority” criterion. After all how can any election result be legitimate when the winner only enjoys a dirty plurality instead of a noble noble majority. But how meaningful is a majority when you just force people into it?
When you force people to support every candidate (yes even the last one) is that really suggesting that the winner has a majority of support? I think that’s a pretty shallow way to get a majority. And after all why not finish the process? When the final 2 candidates are on why not eliminate the last candidate and let all their votes “run-off” into the winner? Then you wouldn’t only have a majority, you’d have Unanimity! Imagine that how great a democracy would be where all of the leaders are supported 100%! I don’t think the Glorious Kim Jung Un in North Korea enjoys that sort of support
Kidding aside a majority won by forcing votes into a funnel is not a meaningful statement. We could have some nonsensical Approval Voting System where we just say the plurality gets the losers votes and then we could say it satisfies a “majority” criteria that’s as meaningful as the majorities generated by Rank Choice Voting.
It’s better to have an honest look at who the winner was and what % of people supported them. Then we know where we are as a society. If we had a leader than won an Approval Voting election with 80% we could be truly wowed at them. If we have a leader who wins an Approval Vote with only 30% we could be aware of how fractured we are. An ugly truth is 100 times better than a beautiful lie.