Alternative Voting Systems

[TastyWheat]

Almost every state elects officials based on a plurality of the vote (i.e. highest percentage of the vote) but this can leave a lot of voters dissatisfied. What alternative voting system do you prefer (details available here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system)) if any?

Some other well known systems were left out of the poll for, what I felt were, serious defects (plurality still included).

[CasualApathy]

Almost every state elects officials based on a plurality of the vote (i.e. highest percentage of the vote) but this can leave a lot of voters dissatisfied. What alternative voting system do you prefer (details available here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system)) if any?

Some other well known systems were left out of the poll for, what I felt were, serious defects (plurality still included).

never mind

[TastyWheat]

Here's a link to a chart summarizing most of these systems (Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method#Comparison_with_other_preferential_ single-winner_election_methods)).

I only made up this thread because I think there are some serious defects with the plurality system. I think the voting system should ideally fulfill these criteria:

Condorcet criterion
Condorcet loser criterion
Majority criterion
Later-no-harm criterion
Simplicity

So in English:

If one candidate beats every candidate in one-on-one match, that candidate should win
If one candidate loses to every other candidate in one-on-one, that candidate should not win
If one candidate is supported by the majority, that candidate should win
Adding more preferences does not hurt the chances of higher preferences
Easy to understand how votes are tallied

It's too bad though, that every system that meets the condorcet criterion can't meet the later-no-harm criterion.

[Kludge]

I love the instant-Runoff system. It provides the ability to vote for all those I support while being able to rank my preference as well. It really provides America with a good compromise, which is what a Republic is all about.

[TastyWheat]

IRV is pretty good. It's not my favorite because it doesn't satisfy Condorcet criterion and that the candidate with the least votes in the first round is eliminated. A candidate may be the first choice of only a few, but the second choice of everyone else. Kemeny-Young and a few others don't have this problem.

[slothman]

IRV is even worse than plurity.
It wood be good to get us out of the duopoly though.
Once we have useful voting then we can change it to a better system.
I personally like approval.
It's easy to understand, it doesn't create spoiners, and it is easy to implement.
BTW, you didn't put in rating.
It means you rate each candidate from 0 to 100(or whatever) and just add them up.
If just 0 and 100 are allowed then it is the same as approval.

[mport1]

No voting and no government :)

[TastyWheat]

BTW, you didn't put in rating.
Range is the term I used for rating. Rating is more intuitive though.

And for most of you that voted for IRV. You should read about Coombs' method. It's very similar but some say it's more fair.

[hypnagogue]

I very much agree we need a substantial restructuring of our voting system. This pluarality voting that we use now is a central cause of our two party deadlock. Picking one of these nuanced, alternative voting methods is something I would want to spend more time really studying, so I don't feel like I can vote responsibly right now.

[SevenEyedJeff]

I picked the Baldwin method, where Chuck Baldwin is the next President. :D

[TastyWheat]

The Schulze method satisfies most voting criteria, but the calculations are hard to understand. As long as the pairwise election results are published no one should be able to manipulate the outcome (aside from the usual methods).