  The metric distortion framework posits that n voters and m candidates are
jointly embedded in a metric space such that voters rank candidates that are
closer to them higher. A voting rule's purpose is to pick a candidate with
minimum total distance to the voters, given only the rankings, but not the
actual distances. As a result, in the worst case, each deterministic rule picks
a candidate whose total distance is at least three times larger than that of an
optimal one, i.e., has distortion at least 3. A recent breakthrough result
showed that achieving this bound of 3 is possible; however, the proof is
non-constructive, and the voting rule itself is a complicated exhaustive
search.
  Our main result is an extremely simple voting rule, called Plurality Veto,
which achieves the same optimal distortion of 3. Each candidate starts with a
score equal to his number of first-place votes. These scores are then gradually
decreased via an n-round veto process in which a candidate drops out when his
score reaches zero. One after the other, voters decrement the score of their
bottom choice among the standing candidates, and the last standing candidate
wins. We give a one-paragraph proof that this voting rule achieves distortion
3. This rule is also immensely practical, and it only makes two queries to each
voter, so it has low communication overhead.
  We also generalize Plurality Veto into a class of randomized voting rules in
the following way: Plurality veto is run only for k < n rounds; then, a
candidate is chosen with probability proportional to his residual score. This
general rule interpolates between Random Dictatorship (for k=0) and Plurality
Veto (for k=n-1), and k controls the variance of the output. We show that for
all k, this rule has distortion at most 3.
