24 ms·
> So in the U.S. then Dems will vote 0-10 and Republican 10-0. Then someone who identifies as neither could get a 6 on average and get elected. (Assuming both
by gboudrias 9y ago
> So in the U.S. then Dems will vote 0-10 and Republican 10-0.
Then someone who identifies as neither could get a 6 on average and get elected. (Assuming both other candidates are close to tied.)
That said as a Canadian I'm down with almost any change in the voting system.
- platz 9y agoYou replace the claim about voting method with a claim about who can get on the ballot. That is as big of a change as changing the voting method.
- straightarrow 9y agoThere are options for managing ballot access: * Since there is no spoiler effect, you could just let everyone on the ballot. Letting abstentions count as zero votes, obscure candidates cannot win. (Less severely, abstention could count as a fractional zero vote, i.e. 0 in the numerator of the average and 0<x<1 (say x = .25) in the denominator...) * Or require a certain number of signatures to let a candidate on the ballot.
- bradbeattie 9y agoWhy give a 6 when you could give a 0 or a 10 depending on advance polling data? Score voting devolves into approval voting for sufficiently informed and tactical voters, and provides less impactful ballots to the tactically naive. No, a new single winner election system is a distraction. What we need is proportional representation, to ensure that more people actually have representatives in proportion to their political desires.
- Simon_says 9y agoYou didn't understand the parent's point. The independent has 60% of the population giving him a 10.