3 ms·

>we've been convinced that at least it's the lesser evil and that we should be happy for that. I've always thought every ballot should have the option of: [

• bhauer 10y ago
  That is a sentiment I share at times, however, as a score voting advocate, I'd like to point out that the consolidation of candidates we see over the course of a campaign, and possibly the small size of the initial field of candidates as well, are largely caused by our plurality voting model. I call it "forced field consolidation" [1] and feel it's a poisonous effect of plurality voting. It causes rifts between the electorate as voters are repeatedly forced to select one and only one candidate at the expense of all others; creating a highly polarized voter landscape. [1] http://tiamat.tsotech.com/more-on-score-voting http://tiamat.tsotech.com/more-on-score-voting
  • raddad 10y ago
    People also have to wonder how a candidate can receive the most votes and still looses the election. * 1824: John Quincy Adams won over * 1876: Rutherford B. Hayes * 1888: Benjamin Harrison * 2000: George W. Bush All these presidents won without the votes. Hayes was chosen by The House. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_where_winner_lost_popular_vote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden... Added later: The article you presented on approval and score voting is interesting and I like the idea. I have believed for some time that we need to do away with the party system and let each candidate stand or fall on their own merit. I don't really fit into any party as I am an independently conservative liberal libertarian with social and anti social leanings.