What do you think is the best voting system? Any you would want to replace your existing one?
*Politicians just want a system that makes voters feel like they were heard and that the government is valid.
*Voters want to feel like they can vote for their favorite candidate without the risk of it harming the overall result if their favorite loses.
*Experts say no such system exists, citing Arrow's Impossibility Theorem.
*I want a primary to general election system that can handle several applicants, channel voter scrutiny to the most likely winners, give everyone the feeling of choice and discussion, but also be simple enough to avoid fraud risks.
The reason federal senators are elected by the populous is because shortly prior to the civil war, voter strategy inside legislatures resulted in gridlock that prevented them from electing anyone.
In most races, the candidate with the most votes wins, even if not a majority. Many have a runoff between the larges two if there is no majority.
*Proponents say it is simple and forces compromises.
*Opponents say votes feel they can't vote for their first choice, and must instead rely on media polls, which some worry are inaccurate, probably deliberately.
Instant runoff voting lets voters rank candidates. 1st choices are looked at first, and the candidate with the fewest 1st choice votes is eliminated. Voters who lost their 1st choice get their vote transferred to their 2nd choice. This continues until there is a majority.
*This is the most strongly proposed single seat method. Voters feel like they can vote for their 1st and maybe get their 2nd if their first loses. However, if their 2nd is a weak centrist, whose voters 2nd choice is candidate #3, then the Those who ranked their 1st choice 1st will see their 3rd choice elected instead. With a large number of candidates, IRV has the effect of randomly choosing a moderately off center candidate, eliminating extremists, but also squeezing out centrists. Incumbents don't like the random factor, nor the fact they can be squeezed between two similar candidates in the first round.
*The greater complexity of IRV could lead to ballot counting mistakes, accidental or deliberate.
Condorcet voting also uses ranked choice and simulates every possible head to head runoff based on the rankings. The number of races climbs with the square of the number of candidates. Also, it is possible to have a smith set greater than 1. My biggest complaint is that an unknown candidate would likely be ranked between a favorite and a known enemy, leading to the unknown candidate winning. IRV would immediately eliminate an unknown candidate.
Multiseat proportional voting has much bigger districts which cost more to campaign to, but it offers a voice to everyone. Often ranked choice voting is used, and the counting can be much more complex than IRV or condorcet, requiring computers, which can be programmed to miscount on purpose. Proponents feel that the losers of a normal race see their votes wasted, no matter how competitive the race was. Opponents of proportional voting say that those elected are not accountable to a single competitive district.
Sortition is where a legislative body is elected at random from the voter body, maybe having some pre-qualifications first. The idea is that if voters are sampled proportionately, the probability is good that the selected body will match the overall views of the population at large. The ancient Greeks thought this was the only valid way to govern, though they did not have any pre-qualifications. Opponents complain they are not accountable to anyone, whereas proponents say they don't need to be, since they are the people. Politicians in fear of embarrassment will vote against their best judgement, whereas those elected by lot would not.
*I believe the lower house of a state body should be elected by sorticion, half female, half above the median age, same race ratio, but all passing minimum reading comprehension and economics exams.
Borda Count lets you give, say, 1-5 points to each candidate. It's big problem is voters can easily bury another strong candidate. This is why the founders specifically said voters shall have only 1 vote.
Approval voting lets you vote for as many candidates as you want, from 1 to n-1. It lets you vote for your favorite while still voting for a backup just in case.
*I like the simplicity of counting the ballots and avoiding vote splitting and especially squeezing of similar candidates.
*Opponents say that giving approval to a backup could cause that backup to beat your favorite.
*To appease the opponents and encourage less competitive voting, I say we should also let people label their favorite candidate. The favorites should be counted first. If there is a majority, that candidate should win outright. If not, we just look at the approval votes.
*I think we should allow 1 write-in as well, to attract more voters and show them if their candidate lost.
I like my modified approval voting for state senators, and pre-qualified proportionately sampled sortition for the lower house. Maybe you have another idea or preference or insight?
What voting system do you prefer?
