5 ms·
> Has anyone come across strong, detailed arguments against it? There's a simpler way that's much easier for voters to understand: "approval voting." You mark
by defertoreptar 6y ago
> Has anyone come across strong, detailed arguments against it?
There's a simpler way that's much easier for voters to understand: "approval voting." You mark all the candidates you approve of, and the candidate(s) with the most total votes wins.
- Miner49er 6y agoThis feels like voter disenfranchisement to me. For an example, I don't "approve" of any candidates in our current presidential election. I'm simply going to vote for what I think is best, strategically. If I had to say who I "approved of" (and took the words literally) I would vote no-one. I suppose I would end up still voting strategically and ignore the wording, but would all voters?
- a1369209993 6y agoTBF, first past the post is even worse in this regard (any vote that doesn't support a member of the Democratic-or-Republican Party is effectively entirely ignored), and ranked-choice isn't much better unless it includes a "leave the office empty" option, which also improves approval voting.
- defertoreptar 6y agoThat's not so much an argument against approval voting as it is an argument for carefully and clearly wording the ballot. That's true of any voting system.
- jacques_chester 6y agoThis basically devolves to FPTP.
- pitaj 6y agoWhy?
- jacques_chester 6y agoPolitical parties are incentivised to mislead voters into marking only one candidate.