2 votes

Alternative Voting Explained

This would be a great long term solution to the duopoly we currently face.


http://youtu.be/3Y3jE3B8HsE



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Garan's picture

Alt voting is ok, Scaled/Weighted voting is more representative

Alt voting still has elements of all-or-nothing voting, since you only vote up or down (vote or no vote).
Ranking candidates in order of preference limits people to an ordered list, which is a limited way of expressing opinion; creating a misrepresentation of how a person feels about all the candidates.

Weighted (or scaled) voting allows for better representation of people's opinions and avoids multiple-counting of votes (run-off voting).

With a 4-value weight/scale (no vote, 1, 2, & 3) you can vote for a number of candidates (A,B,C...), by considering each candidate on a scale from 1 to 3 (or no vote).

On a ballot, people may see a choice like this:
Bill Boyer: [][][]
..with the right-most check-box representing the most favor, or:
Bill Boyer: []
..where people write-in 1,2,3 or nothing.

The following examples show how weighted voting can be more expressive.
For brevity, votes are represented as: : .

A:3, B:2, C:1 (A is first choice, B second, C third)
A:3, B:3, C:0 (voter likes candidates A & B, but not C)
A:3, B:0, C:1, D:1 (voter likes A, not B, gives support to C&D)
A:2, B:2, C:1 (voter mostly likes A&B, C is their next bet)
A:0, B:0, C:3, D3 (voter wants anyone except the two major parties)

Simply tally the totals, and you have a winner.
In this case: A:10, B:7, C:6 (..and the third party gets attention)

In a scenario where two popular candidates polarize the people, yet most people feel pretty good about a 3rd or 4th party, votes might look like this (we'll use 'dem', 'rep', 'lib', as three parties):

dem:3, rep:0, lib:0 (a democrat)
dem:0, rep:3, lib:0 (a republican)
dem:0, rep:0, lib:3 (a libertarian)
dem:3, rep:0, lib:2 (a democrat who is o.k. with a libertarian)
dem:0, rep:3, lib:2 (a republican who is o.k. with a libertarian)

Vote count is: dem:6, rep:6, lib:7

So, a non-front-runner (lib) wins, only because they have more over-all support.

Run-off and Alternate voting both might have eliminated the libertarians in the first round, even though the libertarians may have more overall support (when voters can represent their opinion on a scale).

With how long it takes to change the voting system, wouldn't it be better to promote a more ideal voting system (scaled voting), than one that that is only better (Run-off or Alternative voting) than our current all-or-nothing system (one vote for one candidate)?