@jack-waugh this I’m not sure about. It seems like a multi-winner system, in fact the proponents don’t seem to be advertising it as a single winner method, probably because it suffers from vote splitting.

It seems more like a polling method to assess the relative importance of issues voters consider, but even then it seems like those issues on the poll need to be mostly mutually exclusive, or else vote splitting will take effect. And once the options are mutually exclusive, it seems to draw focus on hedging bets about what others are likely to agree upon rather than on indicating true individual preferences, although those true individual preferences might show through if the “survey responses” (ballots) rather than the QV results alone are investigated.

I think it’s probably too arbitrary and also almost surely doesn’t make do on its promise.