3 ms·

Part of the problem, as your post itself demonstrates, is an excess of choice: once we've decided we need something better than plurality voting (PV, aka FPTP),

Part of the problem, as your post itself demonstrates, is an excess of choice: once we've decided we need something better than plurality voting (PV, aka FPTP), we have to pick a system. It becomes an engineering decision, and a rather subtle one at that. I've long been partial to Approval Voting, but I have to admit it has a clear disadvantage in actual use relative to PV: because the total number of votes is no longer bounded by the total number of voters, it gets much harder to detect fraud. The point is, first, the relative merits of the various alternatives to PV are debatable (and debated), and second, considerations apply beyond the mathematical properties of the systems. This is why, though I detest PV, I have little hope that a consensus will emerge as to the best alternative -- at least not without a lot of experimentation.

gizmo686 13y ago
If there is strong public interest in changing systems, then there will be strong political pressure on those in office to work towards alternate systems. With this, is is reasonable to think that, after a process of debate, we will converge enough to one solution that we can pass it, both with the direct supporters and people who support it because it is better than nothing.
kgermino 13y ago
Personally, I have fallen in love with run-off elections (not sure the specific name) as used for electing the mayor in Chicago. Basically, there is an officially non-partisan election in which anyone qualified can be on the ballot. The vote is held, with everyone able to vote for one person on the list. If there is a single winner (50%+1) then that person is declared the winner and the election if over. If no-one gets a majority of the votes the top 2 candidates face off in a run-off election about 2 months later. This allows everyone to vote for their preferred candidate in the general election without 'wasting' their vote, but ensures that the eventual winner was chosen by at least 50% of their constituents. There's obviously some tweaks that can be made (for one, it doesn't need to be non-partisan) but I think it does a very effective job at avoiding some of the party politics and the pandering to the base for the primary then moving to the center you see in many elections.

gizmo686 13y ago

If there is strong public interest in changing systems, then there will be strong political pressure on those in office to work towards alternate systems. With this, is is reasonable to think that, after a process of debate, we will converge enough to one solution that we can pass it, both with the direct supporters and people who support it because it is better than nothing.

kgermino 13y ago

Personally, I have fallen in love with run-off elections (not sure the specific name) as used for electing the mayor in Chicago. Basically, there is an officially non-partisan election in which anyone qualified can be on the ballot. The vote is held, with everyone able to vote for one person on the list. If there is a single winner (50%+1) then that person is declared the winner and the election if over. If no-one gets a majority of the votes the top 2 candidates face off in a run-off election about 2 months later. This allows everyone to vote for their preferred candidate in the general election without 'wasting' their vote, but ensures that the eventual winner was chosen by at least 50% of their constituents. There's obviously some tweaks that can be made (for one, it doesn't need to be non-partisan) but I think it does a very effective job at avoiding some of the party politics and the pandering to the base for the primary then moving to the center you see in many elections.