Voting

Americans need an electoral system which represents the will of the people, not the slim margin of majority or—worse—the loudest voice of the plurality.  In every State, in our Presidential elections, we need systems which select leaders who represent us as a whole, and not leaders who represent the side who turned out the most angry voters this year.  We need to elect by common consensus.

For single-seat elections, that’s a Condorcet method, electing based on the candidate with the greatest support among the electorate as a whole. Multi-seat elections need something more-complex:  the Single Transferable Vote (STV).

These methods all require voters to place preferred candidates in ranked order on a ballot. The counting systems differ—some simple, others immensely-complex. Several simple Condorcet methods exist, and many have excellent attributes and strongly resist tactical voting. Single Transferable Vote always involves complex counting rules and, while conceptually-simple, the best STV methods are nigh-impossible to understand in a technical sense.

Simplistic counting systems such as Majority and First Past the Post have serious issues and make it unsafe for voters to vote for the candidate they most-prefer; and their descendants, such as Instant Runoff Voting, exclude candidates who are weak first-choice votes but strong second-choice votes, making losers out of winners.

STV elects multiple candidates while giving each voter one vote.  Whenever a candidate wins a seat, the remaining votes are divided up proportional to all voters’s next choices, transferring a fraction of the voting power for those who have already elected a candidate.  If the first seat is won by a landslide, then the transferred votes have more voting power to elect a candidate to the second seat; their power dwindles at each success, and the remaining voters gain greater influence over later seats, ensuring minority opinions have a strong chance of electing representative leadership.