Voting (a Political Issue)
There are a few rules set by our Constitution and Federal government around voting and elections. The Constitution sets some of the parameters for the election of federal officials. Federal law sets the date for federal general elections to be held in even-numbered years on the first Tuesday after the first Nonday in November. Presidential elections occur every four years and congressional elections occur every two years. In addition, federal law sets some rules for voter’s rights, although the Supreme Court has chipped away at some of these rights.
However, for the most part, the rules around voting and elections are decided here in the United States by the states and the elections are generally run by the counties. Each state sets many of its own rules for who can vote, when, where and how we vote and how our votes are counted. By convention, there are a few rules that are generally agreed upon, followed and applied in each state. Nevertheless, there are enough differences between states and counties that it can cause confusion and make voting in some states or counties less fair than in others.
Although the date of the state and local elections is at the discretion of the state and local governments, they often occur during odd-numbered years on the same Tuesday in November that federal elections would have occurred. Primary and special elections can also occur on different dates during the year in each state. Many states also allow early voting and mail in ballots. Although the who, when, where, what and how of voting can vary greatly by state and often by country.
In this section, we will concentrate on who can vote, how we vote and how our votes are counted. I will talk about some additional aspects of and issues with our elections and then lay out a plan for a new electoral process in the next section.
The Constitution sets out some of the eligibility rules for those who can vote. The states can then set additional qualifications if they do not contradict what is in the Constitution. The Constitution states that suffrage (the right to vote) cannot be denied on grounds of race, color, sex or age for citizens who are 18 years or older. Some states ban individuals who have been convicted of felonies or of other crimes from voting indefinitely or for a fixed amount of time.
To protect the integrity and validity of our elections, we must ensure that all eligible voters can vote and that only legitimate voters can cast a single ballot each. Some of the changes that I am proposing for a new electoral process should help to reduce the incentive for voter fraud, but they alone may not eliminate it entirely. Since voter fraud is only truly effective when it goes unnoticed, we do not really know its full extent. Therefore, it is better to err on the side of caution and do all we can to reduce the possibility of it happening, but without going so far that it causes voter suppression.
The first step would be to ensure that we have a good method of ensuring that only individuals who are authorized to vote can register to vote. We also need to ensure that the voter rolls remain clean, so that only the authorized voters are listed in each precinct.
One way that is currently used to keep voter rolls clean is to require everyone who has not voted in some number of years to be removed unless the individuals provide proof that they are still around. Of course, all appropriate means and time would need to be given to try to contact the individuals before removing them. However, this is not a very efficient nor reliable way of keeping the voter rolls clean.
A better way to keep the voter rolls clean would be to move them up to the federal level. The federal government would keep track of all voters. Each voter could only be listed with one address that would correspond with one and only one voting precinct. This means a voter could not be registered to vote in more than one precinct. When someone moved or died, the federal voter roll would be updated. There would be no need for voters to reregister to vote. They would just need to change their address.
Each precinct could then pull their current clean voter roll from the federal voter roll. Any local rules that would prevent someone from voting could then be applied by the given precinct, like no convicted felons or non-citizens.
Then we want to make sure that the individuals showing up to vote are who they say they are. This means that we all would need to provide some appropriate proof as to who we are. This may be as simple as some form of valid identification that has a picture, or something higher tech like a fingerprint scanner or facial recognition software. Whatever method is used, it must ensure that individuals who are authorized to vote can do so. We also need to ensure everyone has appropriate identification that can be easily obtained without any excessive cost associated with it, since we do not want to suppress the right of any valid voter to vote.
In most places in the United States, we have a simple plurality voting system. In this type of voting, the candidate that receives more votes than his or her opponents would win the election. With 2 candidates for a single office, this means that one of them must receive a majority of the votes. With 3 or more candidates, a candidate can often win the election even when he or she receives far less than a majority of the votes. In addition, the votes can sometimes be split between the candidates in such a way that the least preferred candidate wins the election.
For instance, we can look at an example case with 3 candidates. In head-to-head races, candidate B would win 60% to 40% over candidate A, candidate C would win 60% to 40% over candidate A, and candidates B and C would split the vote with about 50% each. With all 3 candidates in the race, candidate A would get about 40% of the votes and candidates B and C would then split the vote of their supporters so that each would only get about 30% of the vote. This would mean that the least preferred candidate would win with only 40% of the vote.
With 3 or more candidates in the race, it is very likely that 2 or more candidates will appeal to the same voters, but that one of them has a far better chance of being elected than the others. Since these other candidates have a lesser chance of being elected and could take away votes from the preferred candidate, these other candidates are often called spoilers.
With a plurality voting system, voters often must decide between voting for their preferred candidate and possibly allowing an undesirable candidate to win or voting for a less desirable candidate that has a better chance of winning. Although limiting the election to just 2 candidates would ensure that the winner needed to get a majority of the votes, this would deprive us of our right to have a real choice.
For instance, it would be like telling everyone that they could only vote for vanilla or chocolate ice cream. Although, given the extreme candidates we are now getting, my pizza example might be more appropriate. That is, it would be more like needing to choose between just two types of pizza. where one was vegetarian with broccoli, cauliflower and pineapple slices and one that was all meat with spam, haggis and liver bits.
We also need to look at this from a potential candidate's point of view. If there were already 2 candidates (X and Y) in the race and this third candidate (Z) wanted to run, then this third candidate (Z) would need to worry about possibly being a spoiler. This would be especially true if candidate Z got a lot more votes from people who would have voted for the winner in a head-to-head race between candidates X and Y. That is, unless candidate Z got enough votes to win.
For instance, let's say that candidate X would win 55% to 45% in a head-to-head matchup with candidate Y. Let's also say that candidate Z would win 65% to 35% over candidate X, and would win 60% to 40% over candidate Y. Given the results of these head-to-head matchups, it might seem like candidate Z should be the favorite to win in a 3-way race.
However, what these results really show is that candidate X is preferred by 35% of the voters and candidate Y is preferred by 40% of the voters and that candidate Z is only preferred by 25% of the voters (20% from those who would have been candidate X voters and 5% from those who would have been candidate Y voters). However, candidate Z is the second choice of all the other 75% of the voters. This all means that with our plurality voting system candidate Y, who would be the least favored candidate in any head-to-head matchup, would win with just 40% of the votes.
From the above, we can see the dilemma that candidate Z is in. Even though candidate Z would be preferred by more voters than either of the other 2 candidates in head-to-head matchups, candidate Z would not only lose in a 3-way race but would allow the least favored candidate to win. Therefore, candidate Z and a lot of other great candidates may not run for office for fear of being a spoiler.
What we need is a voting system that will allow us to vote for our preferred candidate without worrying that our vote might be wasted on a candidate that may have less of a chance of winning or that we might allow a far less desirable candidate to win. The way to ensure that the most desirable candidate wins would be to require that the winning candidate must get a majority of the votes. However, with more than 2 candidates, that is not always possible with a single election when using a plurality voting system.
When no one gets a required majority, the thing that is usually done is to have a runoff election. Of course, having a runoff election has a few of its own problems. For instance, it would be time-consuming, expensive and inconvenient for everyone involved. In addition, fewer voters usually bother to vote in runoff elections, which reduces their legitimacy. We also would have an issue in cases where there were more than 3 candidates, in that it might not be fair to limit the runoff to just the top 2 candidates.
Luckily, we can eliminate most of the problems of having a runoff by incorporating the runoff in the original election. This instant runoff can easily be done by allowing us to rank the candidates as our first choice, second choice, third choice, etc. If no candidate gets a majority of the first-choice votes, then the usual thing that is done is to do an elimination process. That is, the candidate with the least votes would be eliminated. If our first-choice candidate is eliminated, then our second choice would become our new first choice. This would be repeated until a candidate gets a majority of the new first choice votes.
This type of instant runoff election is usually called Ranked Choice Voting, but is also known as Preferential Voting, Instant Runoff Voting, and Alternative Voting. This eliminates all the problems with having a separate runoff election. It also allows us to vote for all our preferred candidates without worrying that some of them may turn out to be spoilers. In fact, when we do not need to worry about spoilers, we may find that some of those supposed spoilers were the preferred candidates of a majority of the voters. In addition, if potential candidates did not need to worry about being a spoiler, we would get more and potentially better candidates.
Unlike plurality voting, Ranked Choice Voting requires that a candidate must get a majority of the votes to win. However, it eliminates the need for any separate runoff elections and ensures that all voters' votes count instead of some potentially being wasted on "spoiler" candidates. One of the biggest advantages of Ranked Choice Voting is that it greatly increases the odds of the voters' preferred candidates winning in an election.
When Ranked Choice Voting is used it has also been found that the candidates engage in much less negative campaigning. The reason stems from the fact that candidates may need to get more than just first choice votes. To do that, they do not want to alienate voters who might prefer the candidates that they would have attacked and then lose those voters’ possible second or third choice votes. In addition, since candidates need to appeal to more voters to get a majority, more centrist or moderate candidates would have more of an edge over the more extreme candidates.
Although Ranked Choice Voting has recently been gaining some following in many different places here in the United States and around the world, there are some who are trying to block its use. Our two main political parties especially do not like it because it would make it easier for a preferred independent or third-party candidate to win. Since many of us do not fully understand how Ranked Choice Voting works, it makes it easier for those opposed to it to misrepresent it and turn us against it. Therefore, we should take a closer look at it before we move on to a description of a new electoral process that would include it.
The first change with Ranked Choice Voting is that the ballot may look a little different. With only 1 or 2 candidates, the ballot would look the same and we would vote the same as we do with our current plurality voting system. However, with 3 or more candidates the ballot would give us the option to rank our choices. With 3 candidates, we would have the option to select our first and second choices. We would not need to select our third choice, since that would obviously be the unselected candidate. With 5 candidates, we would have the option to select our first, second, third and fourth choices.
The following are examples of what the races with 3 and 5 candidates might look like on a ballot, but with the candidates' names replaced with how we might feel about then and with our corresponding choices already marked.
Notice that in the example above with 5 candidates, we would still mark the candidate that we dislike as our fourth choice. Since we still prefer that candidate over the candidate we hate, we still want to ensure that our vote is counted if it comes down to a final choice between the candidate we dislike and the candidate we hate.
As you should be able to see by these examples, we need to think more about our preferences to use Ranked Choice Voting correctly. That is, not only would we need to decide our first choice, but we would also need to rank all the other candidates and to mark those choices correctly on the ballot. One way to rank the candidates would be for us to match each candidate head-to-head with the other candidates and to see who comes out ahead in each case. Then we would need to list the candidates in order and mark our ballots accordingly.
The second change with Ranked Choice Voting is with the way the ballots are counted. There are several methods in which this can be done. Any of these methods should increase the odds that the preferred candidates get elected. However, after playing around with several different scenarios, I believe that one method would more consistently elect the preferred candidates. This would be what I call the Head-To-Head Matchup method, which works a little differently than the Least First-Place Elimination method that seems to be commonly used.
The Head-To-Head Matchup method would use our rankings to simulate a series of one-on-one matchups of the candidates. That is, it answers the question of what a series of elections with every combination of two candidates would have resulted in. In most cases, we would find that one candidate would have won every election so that candidate is the preferred candidate and the one who would be declared the winner. In some cases, there may be a tie but there are some methods that can be used to break the tie.
Now, let's look at how this would work with the example we looked at above with candidates A, B and C, where candidate A is preferred by 40% of the voters and candidates B and C are both preferred over candidate A by 60% of the voters. Where candidates B and C are somewhat similar in the eyes of the voters, so the voters are closely split on their preferences for candidates B and C.
With plurality voting, candidate A could win with just 40% of the vote, since the other candidates would each only get about 30% of the vote. This would be so even though candidate A would lose 40% to 60% in a head-to-head matchup with either candidate B or C. To complete this picture, let's say that voters who preferred candidate A would closely split for candidates B and C as their second choice, but that candidate B would win in a matchup with candidate C.
With the Head-To-Head Matchup method of Ranked Choice Voting, the outcome of the 3-way matchup would mirror the outcomes of the head-to-head matchups. Since none of the 3 candidates would get a majority of the first-choice votes, we would need to simulate the 3 possible matchups (A verses B, A verses C, and B verses C). Based on our analysis above, candidate B would win two matchups, candidate C would win one matchup and candidate A would win no matchup. Therefore, candidate B would be declared the winner.
In the above case, if the matchup between candidate B and candidate C resulted in a tie, then they would both end up with an equal number of wins. Candidate A would still lose, but we now would need to break the tie between candidate B and candidate C. One way would be to elect the candidate with more overall first-choice votes. Another way would be to elect the candidate with more votes from all the head-to-head matchups. In this case, since we got a tie with the matchup between candidate B and candidate C, we would just need to see who got more votes in their matchups with candidate A.
If the above tie breakers did not work, then we might need to resort to something like a coin toss, which is already used in some cases of ties today. Of course, even if we needed to end up deciding the election with a coin toss, we would still end up with a representative we prefer over who we might get with the plurality voting system.
In case you are curious as to why I believe that the Head-To-Head Matchup counting method of Ranked Choice Voting is the best, the following is an analysis of some of the counting methods that could be used. If you are not interested in this analysis, you can skip down to the next subsection where we will look at how to use Ranked Choice Voting with Multiple Selection Elections.
The most common counting method could be called the Least First-Place Elimination counting method. When this method is used, the candidate with the least first choice votes would be eliminated, and the second choices of the voters who had preferred that candidate would be used. The elimination and use of remaining choices would continue until a candidate’s votes resulted in a majority.
Based on the above example, we know that candidate C would get the fewest first choice votes, and we know that those voters’ second choice would be candidate B. Therefore, candidate B, who we know was really the voters' preferred candidate, would win 60% to 40% over candidate A.
However, even though the Least First-Place Elimination counting method of Ranked Choice Voting is a big improvement over plurality voting and over having a runoff election. There could still be situations where the candidate preferred by most voters may not be elected.
For example, in the above example, let's say that the voters who voted for candidate A all preferred candidate C rather than candidate B. In that case, a head-to-head matchup of candidates B and C would have resulted in candidate C winning almost 70% to 30% over candidate B. However, we would still elect candidate B who, at least, was preferred over the least preferred candidate A.
Although the above situation is mathematically possible, it might be unlikely in this situation. Since we know that candidates B and C are similar, it is more likely that the voters who preferred candidate A would be closely split on their second choice between candidates B and C. If so, then candidate B would most likely still win in a head-to-head matchup with a bit more than 50% of the votes. However, it is still quite likely that more of the voters that preferred candidate A might prefer candidate C. Yet we would still elect candidate B, since candidate C would have already been eliminated.
Another situation might be the case where we have 3 candidates that are similar in education, experience, ethics and so forth, except that they lean Left, Center and Right. If one of these candidates is preferred by a few more voters (34%) than the others (33% each), then that candidate would win when using our plurality voting system with just 34% of the vote.
However, with Ranked Choice Voting the outcome would depend on the second-choice votes. The second choice of both the Left and Right first choice voters would most likely be the Center candidate, since the Center candidate would be closer to their views, even if not as close as their first choice. Therefore, if the Left or Right candidate had the fewest votes and was eliminated, then the Center candidate would almost certainly win with about 66% of the vote.
If the Center candidate instead had the fewest first choice votes, then the outcome may not be as clear, since it would depend on which way the voters who preferred the Center candidate leaned. If they had leaned enough to the left, then the Left candidate would win, but if they had leaned enough to the right, then the Right candidate would win. Basically, the outcome would come out the same as if there had been a head-to-head matchup between the Left and Right candidates. This although the center candidate would have won in head-to-head matchups with both the left and right candidates.
However, the big problem with this situation is the fact that the Center candidate was eliminated. With the Center candidate voters closely split on their second choice, the winning Left or Right candidate might have only gotten 51% of the final vote. Nevertheless, with a head-to-head matchup between the Center candidate and either the Left or Right candidate, the Center candidate would probably win with about 66% of the vote. Meaning the Center candidate was the voters' real preferred candidate.
As we can see, there are situations where the Least First-Place Elimination counting method can sometimes result in a candidate winning other than the one preferred by most voters. The question would be whether these situations would occur often enough to be a problem or not. Although these situations are mathematically possible, they might be rare in real world elections so that it may not be worth trying to fix them. Therefore, the answer would seem to be no. However, over many elections this situation would certainly occur, therefore it may be a good idea to study this further. If we tried to fix these situations, we would probably need to modify the way we decide on which candidate to eliminate.
An alternative counting method might be to eliminate the candidate that had the most last choice votes instead of the least first choice votes. Although this might do better in electing the most preferred candidate in some cases, it might not do any better overall. When this method would do better at electing the most preferred candidate, it would be in cases where that candidate had the least first choice votes. Some individuals might then falsely use that as criticism to say it elected the wrong candidate.
As I stated before, the best counting method seems to be to do head-to-head matchups of all the various combinations of candidates. A candidate would get a win for each case where the voters gave the candidate more of the higher-choice votes than his or her head-to-head opponent. Then, the candidate that won the most head-to-head matchups would be elected. In case of a tie, we could elect the candidate with the most first choice votes.
Given the way voters would most likely rank their choices, one candidate should always win all the head-to-head matchups, and would therefore be the obvious candidate to be elected. However, it is possible to come up with scenarios where none of the candidates wins all the head-to-head matchups. In fact, it is possible for each candidate to win once. This is possible if different voters cared more about different issues and the candidates all had different positions on each of those issues.
For instance, we could take the case where each of 3 candidates had different views on 3 different issues. If voters who cared more about one issue ranked the candidates based on their positions on that issue, then they could rank the candidates in a different order than the voters who cared more about the other issues. This could lead to 40% of voters ranking the order of candidates as A, B and C, 30% of voters ranking the order of candidates as B, C and A and 30% of voters ranking the order of the candidates as C, A and B. This would then lead to candidate A winning over candidate B 70% to 30%, candidate B winning over candidate C 70% to 30% and candidate C winning over candidate A 60% to 40%.
As a quick note, the head-to-head matchups above may not match exactly with the results if voters were to vote in actual head-to-head matchups. That is because without the candidate who had the preferred position on the issue that some voters cared most about, then those voters may end up voting based on the positions that the other candidates had on other issues. However, I do not think that would result in too much of a difference.
When no candidate wins more of the head-to-head matchups, then we would need to use a backup method. We could use one of the elimination methods, revert to making the candidate with the most first choice votes the winner, or come up with something else. In the above case, candidate A should come out as the winner in each of these tie breaking methods.
Although this head-to-head method should almost always elect the most preferred candidate, some individuals may still try to criticize it if the winning candidate had the least first choice votes. However, for the candidate with the least first choice votes to win in a 3-candidate race, the candidate must have gotten a lot of second choice votes and gotten fewer last choice votes. This means that the winning candidate was liked by a lot of voters, but fewer voters had strong positive or negative feelings about the winning candidate. Therefore, this candidate may not bring out as much passion in voters but would be better at bringing us together instead of dividing us.
The bottom line is that even in the rare cases that Ranked Choice Voting does not elect the most preferred candidate, it will not elect the least preferred candidate like we sometimes now get with our plurality voting system. The only individuals who will not like this voting system are the least preferred candidates and their supporters. However, they are in the minority, and the majority will be happier with a Ranked Choice Voting system.
In some cases, we need to elect more than one person for an office. For instance, a school board may have several members, and every year or so two or more of their seats may be up for election. Therefore, we may be asked to select two or more of the candidates for that office. For these multiple person races, we should still use Ranked Choice Voting, even though the ballot might be a bit more complicated than for a single person race, since there may be more candidates and therefore more choices to make. However, it would still help to ensure that we elect our preferred candidates.
Let's look at a race to elect 3 people for some office. There are a few ways to handle this. One way would be to rank all the candidates, just as we would with a single person race. However, we would stop eliminating candidates when we got down to the top 3 candidates or take the 3 candidates with the most head-to-head matchup wins.
If we used the elimination method, we could simply stop eliminating candidates once we had gotten down to the required number of candidates to be elected. However, some of the voters would not have their second or third choice votes would not be counted. Therefore, instead of stopping when we got down to the required number of candidates, the better way would be to go all the way down to elect the top candidate. Then repeat the process with the previously elected candidate removed until we got the required number of additional candidates.
If we use the head-to-head counting method, the candidates with the most head-to-head matchup wins would be the winners. One candidate should win all the matchups, another candidate should win all but one matchup, etc. We would stop when we got down to the required number of candidates to be elected.
An alternative method of filling out the ballot would be to make 3 first choices and then rank the remaining candidates. This would simplify the ballot, since it would eliminate 2 choice columns from the ballot. However, our need to select 3 first choices may be a bit more confusing. It could also be a bit more complicated to count since you would need to decide how to count votes for a head-to-head matchup where a voter marked them both as their first choice. Although it probably would not matter if both votes were counted or ignored when determining the winner of the matchup.
There are many cases where there are a lot of candidates wanting to run for a given elected office. With our current plurality voting system, if we had multiple candidates from one political party in the general election, they could split the votes in such a way as to let a candidate from another political party win with less than a majority of the votes. Therefore, each political party will want to whittle down the number of their candidates to just one. They usually do that with a primary election. However, there are a few issues with the way our current primary elections work.
One big issue is that if several or more candidates compete in a political party's primary election and we use a plurality voting system, then the political party could select a less preferred candidate. That is, several candidates that would best represent the party could split the vote so that a more extreme or less qualified candidate is selected. The simple answer to this issue would be for the party to use Ranked Choice Voting for their primaries.
A bigger issue with primary elections is that most of them limit the voters in these elections to just members of the given political party. That is, unless we are a member of the given political party, we may not be allowed to vote in their primary elections. In these cases, our only options are to join that political party or not to be able to vote in their primary elections. Of course, if we do join a political party or are allowed to vote in one party’s primary elections, we would still not be able to vote in the primary elections of any of the other political parties.
Some individuals may say that a political party should have the right to select their candidates, so others should not be able to vote in their primaries. However, we want to elect representatives who will represent all their constituents instead of just their political party. Therefore, we all should have the right to have a say in who we want to run for office.
In some locations, one political party dominates the political landscape enough that their candidates are typically guaranteed to win in the general elections for all local, state and federal offices. In these cases, the only individuals who get a real vote for who is elected are the members of that political party. This means that if we were not members of that party, our votes would not count. Therefore, even if we think that party stinks, we might just need to hold our noses and join the party anyway, or we could stand our moral ground and be deprived of our votes.
On the other hand, we may live in a location that is still competitive or where different parties dominate at the local, state and federal level. In these cases, even if we did join one of the political parties, we would still only be able to vote in their primary elections and not in those of the other political parties. Therefore, we may at least have a say in who gets elected in some cases, but not in all cases.
The only real answer would be to do away with these partisan primaries in some way. The political parties would argue that that would deprive them of their right to choose the candidate that will represent their political party. However, the candidate who we want to elect is one who will represent all their constituents, and not just their political party. Therefore, their argument does not hold water.
One option might be to do away with the primary elections altogether and just let everyone run for office who wanted to run. However, you might then end up with a dozen or more candidates running for the same office. That would lead to several problems, including the ones that originally led to the creation of political parties and primaries.
Having a dozen or more candidates for an elected office would make it extremely difficult for us to get to know each one well enough to make an informed decision. In addition, if we used a plurality voting system, a candidate could then win with as little as 10% of the vote. Using Ranked Choice Voting would ensure that a candidate would need to get a majority of the vote, but voters might still have a hard time doing the comprehensive evaluation needed to rank them all. Therefore, we would still need to have primaries.
The solution would be to have open primaries where all the candidates would run against each other irrespective of any political party affiliation, and all of us would get to vote irrespective of any political party affiliation. Having open primaries has two important advantages over partisan primaries. It allows all of us to have a say in who the candidates will be for the elected offices and would give us more and better choices in the general election.
Since all of us would have a vote, we would choose candidates that are more representative of all our positions and values, instead of getting the more extreme candidates that would be elected in partisan primaries. We could also have more choices in the general election. Even if all the winning candidates in the open primary election turn out to be from the same political party, they would still be more representative of our positions and values.
We would still need to evaluate and to rank all the candidates for the primary, but this would just be an initial cut, so we would only need to make an initial judgment of the candidates. The top four or five candidates for each office would then go on to the general election. For the general election, we would only need to make a more detailed assessment of the four or five remaining candidates.
Even though we are selecting a few top candidates instead of just one top candidate, a plurality voting system could still give us all or some of the least preferred candidates. Therefore, we want to use Rank Choice Voting in our primary elections, just as we should do in our general elections.
The primary election would be handled the same as a multiple selection election in a general election. We would rank the candidates for each office from our first choice to our last choice. Then we would use the appropriate Rank Choice Voting counting method to determine the 4 or 5 preferred candidates.
For instance, let’s take a primary with 10 candidates in which we need to reduce the list down to the top 5 preferred candidates. Each of the first 5 candidates is favored by about 12 percent of the voters but each is disliked by most of the remaining 88 percent of the voters. The last 5 candidates are liked by almost all voters with 40 percent of the voters preferring any one of them over any of the first 5 candidates.
If we used a plurality voting system, then the last 5 candidates could all get eliminated, even though each was preferred by 40 percent of the voters over any of the first 5 candidates. This could happen because the voters who preferred the last 5 candidates could split their votes so that none of those candidates would get even 10 percent of the vote while each of the first 5 candidates would each get about 12 percent of the votes.
If we used Ranked Choice Voting to rank the candidates and used the Head-To-Head counting method, then the 5 preferred candidates should be selected. Although most real primaries would probably not be as extreme as the above example, this process would pretty much guarantee that the voters’ preferred candidates would be selected in the primary and would move on to the general campaign trail and election.
New Electoral Process -
A New Electoral Process that will help us elect better representation.
|