F
FallingPianos
I was doing some research on different voting systems, and how each encourages tactical voting (voting for someone other than one's true preference) in one way or another. Its been mathematically proven by the Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem that any useful voting system is subject to tactical voting. Its simple a matter of how much and what type of tactical voting.
First Past the Post systems, where everyone votes for one candidate and whichever has a plurality wins, encourage compromising. This is where one votes for one of the 2 candidates most likely to win, even if niether is their true preference. Duverger's law (not an actual law) shows that such voting systems tend to encourage two party systems.
In Instant-Runoff voting, voters rank all the candidates according to preference. If after the votes are counted, no candidate has over 50% of the total vote, the candidate with the fewest number of votes is eliminated. The votes of everyone who voted for the eliminated candidate is transfered to their second preference and the votes are counted again. If there is still no overall majority after the second counting, another candidate is eliminated. the votes from the 1st eliminated candidate are transfered to their 3rd preference, and everyone who voted for the second candidate has their vote transfered to their second preference. this process is repeted until one candidate has the overall majority. Comprimising is still possible, but less so than in First Past the Post systems. It is also vulnerable to Push-Over tactics, where a voter ranks a less perferable candidate high so that they can compete with another undesireable candidate in later rounds.
There are other voting systems out there, but these are the most two debated today. Would you want national elections to switch to instant runoff voting?
First Past the Post systems, where everyone votes for one candidate and whichever has a plurality wins, encourage compromising. This is where one votes for one of the 2 candidates most likely to win, even if niether is their true preference. Duverger's law (not an actual law) shows that such voting systems tend to encourage two party systems.
In Instant-Runoff voting, voters rank all the candidates according to preference. If after the votes are counted, no candidate has over 50% of the total vote, the candidate with the fewest number of votes is eliminated. The votes of everyone who voted for the eliminated candidate is transfered to their second preference and the votes are counted again. If there is still no overall majority after the second counting, another candidate is eliminated. the votes from the 1st eliminated candidate are transfered to their 3rd preference, and everyone who voted for the second candidate has their vote transfered to their second preference. this process is repeted until one candidate has the overall majority. Comprimising is still possible, but less so than in First Past the Post systems. It is also vulnerable to Push-Over tactics, where a voter ranks a less perferable candidate high so that they can compete with another undesireable candidate in later rounds.
There are other voting systems out there, but these are the most two debated today. Would you want national elections to switch to instant runoff voting?
