voting...?
Mar. 1st, 2004 02:30 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
garotekuro5hin just asked a very interesting question.
Why do we just vote for one person?
Why don't we put the candidates we like IN ORDER, first to last on our ballots, instead?
Candidate 1: gets 1 vote.
Candidate 2: gets 1/2 vote.
Candidate 3: gets 1/3 vote.
Candidate 4: gets 1/4 vote.
etc. as many as you want.
In a system like that, two candidates who are similar but both favored over a third would actually have that sentiment borne out in votes.
I'm pretty sure that the only reason this wasn't written into the constitution is because it would have been backbreaking mathematics work for the vote-counters.
Among five people, if two vote for fred with their second choice as bob, and three vote for bob with their second choice as fred, bob would win as usual. But if three candidates are running, and the third candidate is the second choice after bob for two people instead of fred, then bob would win, as the rightfully preferred candidate. IT'S SO SIMPLE!
But seriously ... doesn't this make more, a LOT more, sense than just voting for one person? It handily solves the problem with 'throwaway candidates' messing up elections, and in a choice among many candidates, the most favored one really does end up winning.
It's not hard to understand, either. The ballot can read:
| Write a 1 next to the candidate you like most. Write a 2 next to your second favorite, if you have one. ONE NUMBER PER CANDIDATE. |
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-03-18 04:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-18 04:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-18 05:26 pm (UTC)If more than half the population votes for any one candidate, that candidate will always win.
If there were two candidates, and everyone voted for the same guy in their second choice, and the first choice votes were spread evenly between the two canditates, then the candidate with all the secondary votes would win ... breaking what would otherwise be a tie.
If there were _three_ candidates, and everyone voted for the same guy in their second choice, and the first choice votes were spread evenly between the three candidates, then the candidate who was everyone's second choce would win, breaking the potential three-way tie.
It's when the primary votes get mixed around, or when some people decline to make a secondary or tertiary choice, that things get interesting.
Let's say there are three candidates. You really like candidate A, but you dislike B and C. So you would give your 1/1 vote to A, and none to the others.
Your friend Bob really likes B, and generally approves of A, but, like you, he can't stand C. He votes 1/1 for B, and 1/2 for A, and none for the hapless C.
At this point, A is ahead in votes, instead of it being a tie.
What if it's a hotly contested election, and two fellows who like C jump in, and cast votes for C, and C alone? C would then be ahead of A, as usual. No susprises there. It would be a normal election.
But say these two voters also have an interest in A. If they were to give A a 1/3 and a 1/4 vote respectively, that would tip the balance ever-so-slightly in favor of A, and A would win the election.
So how does this makes things better? Let's take an exit poll.
You: "I voted for A, and A won! Things are great! B and C can go suck eggs!"
Your friend: "I voted for B, but I also like A, so this is alright. At least C didn't win."
The two fellows: "We voted for C, and it sucks that we lost. But we also gave help to A because, if it came down to a choice between him and B, we would much rather have A."
If those two voters for C had not shown any interest in A, their candidate would have won. But because they exhibited a fair degree of approval for A as well as C, they tipped the balance. Had they only given 1/5 of a vote each, or 1/6 or 1/9th, C would have won.
So to summarize, this sytem allows people to express different levels of approval for the different candidates. If there is only one candidate they like, and they can't stand any of the others, then it's true that their options are limited. My advice to them would be, "find a more moderate candidate, and sponsor his election."
Another aspect of this system, one that I consider the most important by far, is that in an election with TWO DOZEN candidates to choose from, we all stand a better chance of electing someone who supports our views, since we can vote for each according to our preference without worry that our vote is being "thrown away" on a hopeless candidate. This system destroys the 'two-party' problem that has plagued United States politics since the very first presidential election.
no subject
Date: 2004-04-21 03:55 pm (UTC)BTW, if that offer to sell your Accord still stands, I think I'm going to be able to take you up on it pretty soon here. When are you leaving on your trip?