There's some great thinking in this article, even though I'm not sure I completely agree with it. > We should simply ask voters to send a lot of signals (by vo

There's some great thinking in this article, even though I'm not sure I completely agree with it. > We should simply ask voters to send a lot of signals (by voting for any candidate who strikes them as reasonably good) and we should let the higher levels of the system do the work of aggregating together everyone’s signals, to reveal the most urgent concerns that society is facing. The problem here is how we define "reasonably good", which is especially difficult as there is no way to really calibrate that between voters. Does "reasonably good" mean the candidate is a 7 out of 10, or a 4 out of 10? This gets even more complicated when (some) voters realise they can vote tactically to increase the effectiveness of their vote, or are told by the candidates (or misinformation campaigns) that these tactical voting strategies are helpful (even if they end up being detrimental). Is there any evidence that Approval Voting is any better (than other electoral reforms) at picking up and aggregating these signals to provide the desired electoral outcomes?