I'm a 1st time voter in a plurality voting state. As part of deciding how I'm going to vote, I'm trying to know what is the intention of a state choosing plurality vote (I'm assuming they all have the same intention if the voting system is essentially the same). I'm guessing that a state's reasoning for picking a voting system is deduced from the advantages of that system.
- There's a whole list of disadvantages on Wikipedia; However, what are the advantages?
Not just advantages as in lower cost, e.g. less time spent on voting, counting votes, etc. I mean advantages as in the actual benefit (if any) of doing this kind of system specifically over other systems? i.e. what's the additional revenue (if any) besides the reduced cost?
- There's an example given 'Imagine that Tennessee is having an election on the location of its capital', where 58% people prefer Memphis least but Memphis wins. What exactly can be the moral lesson(s) here for voters?
I really mean to ask for voters because obviously it's not like we're gonna change system anytime soon. (Based on the answer to (1), maybe the system doesn't even need to change!) A lot of what I'm reading online speaks more to people who are designing voting systems rather than to people who are voting (in plurality voting systems).
Anyway, I guess it's something like 'don't be stubborn/picky'. And I don't mind not being stubborn/picky. I think of a legal analogy: If I'm part of the defense, then I'll gladly settle with the prosecution instead of going to verdict. But the analogy doesn't quite tell me what to do when there are 3 or more prosecutors. (I think 2 prosecutors is ok. 1 prosecutor of course is the 2 candidate thing, with the other candidate as going to verdict.)
What I've also read:
There is a little what I read that does speak to such voters namely it's not enough just to vote tactically (like listen and read to what others have to say and then make our choice) but that we must also speak up ourselves about the person we are tactically voting for...or something. (Perhaps this kind of answers (1) like the/an intention is for people to speak up. Otherwise, say in ranked votes, people will just be quiet or something.)
Something else I'm reading says plurality voting could be objectively bad, but it's tough to change the system...does this mean to say there isn't (necessarily) a particular moral lesson (for voters)? Eg vote whatever and just...not exactly let the voting system correct itself, but let the politics correct itself to become 2 party?