# Tag Info

## Hot answers tagged voting-systems

104

It’s called tactical voting. From Wikipedia: In voting methods, tactical voting (or strategic voting or sophisticated voting or insincere voting) occurs, in elections with more than two candidates, when a voter supports another candidate more strongly than their sincere preference in order to prevent an undesirable outcome.

66

The people weren't trusted It'll take a bit to get to the titular statement, as we need to discuss the history leading up to the Constitution to understand and justify it. Between the war for independence and the ratification of the US Constitution was a span of several years. The states were organized into a nation under the Articles of Confederation for ...

65

This problem can be solved by a system called ranked-choice voting, aka instant-runoff voting First off, there are multiple voting systems based on ranking your choices. The system you're describing is just one example, and it's a pretty bad one, so it's frustrating that people refer to it as "ranked-choice voting", as if it's the only ranked ...

52

As Andrew Grimm correctly pointed out it is tactical voting you are looking for. However, I would avoid harsh terms such as dishonest since Wikipedia also mentioned that: It has been shown by the Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem that any single-winner ranked voting method which is not dictatorial must be susceptible to tactical voting More details are ...

47

This is functionally identical to range voting Mathematically, it is irrelevant which range you pick of a given size, be that 1 to 3, -1 to 1, or -997 to -995. Let's run your sample election at two ranges (I'm assuming 3500 voters as it's the smallest number you need, but you can add more voters and it does not change the result): -1 to 1 Gaullists: 2000*...

47

Alaska Ballot Measure 2 made two big changes to elections, both of which are expected to reduce the power of the main parties: Party-run primary elections are replaced with non-partisan primary elections (sometimes called Jungle primaries). In a non-partisan primary, all candidates, regardless of party, run against each other in a primary election and the ...

46

Because Labour gets more seats with regional representation. Even the famed Tony Blair landslide majorities were never actually a popular majority. In 2005, Labour won 55% of the seats with 35% of the vote. In 2001, Labour won 63% of the seats with 41% of the vote. In 1997, Labour won 63% of the seats with 43% of the vote. And even when Labour doesn't ...

44

The planned size of the Bundestag is 598 members: One directly elected member from each of the 299 electoral districts plus equally many members chosen from party lists in order to achieve a total allocation of seats that is proportional to the party votes (Zweitstimmen). As a simplified example, assume that party X got 10% of the party votes and that their ...

42

you could be given a randomly generated GUID which can identify your vote, but cannot be reversed engineered to identify you, unless you tell someone else what your vote GUID This seems absurd to me, its trivial to steal or brute force that. Brute force a GUID? No. Steal, yes, that's the problem: any ID of sufficient length will be impossible for most ...

35

Yes, Article 81 of the Macedonian constitution (found here in Macedonian, or here in English) provides that the successful candidate in a Presidential election is elected by majority vote, provided that more than 40% of registered voters participate. This used to be 50%, but was altered by the 31st amendment in 2009 to 40%. The provision in full: A ...

34

I don't see what blockchain has to do with GUIDs and there seems to be some context lost in the edits. In either case, I recommend taking a look at this voting software related XKCD. Most experts agree with that XKCD comic. Giving a voter a unique, random GUID makes it impossible to identify a voter based on a GUID - that is, if you ignore other vectors. ...

34

This was actually a big concern of the authors of the Constitution. They were thinking in particular of the example of Oliver Cromwell from their own father's generation. He gained power as Prime Minister, and slowly over time remade himself into military dictator of England, eventually dispensing with parliament altogether. The basic idea they tried was to ...

33

This sounds like a variant of the single transferable vote (STV) system, except you're only allowing one "backup preference"; quoting Wikipedia: Under STV, each elector (voter) casts a single vote in a district election that elects multiple winners. Each elector marks their ballot for the most preferred candidate and also marks back-up preferences....

31

The possibility of populist demagogues rising to power is unfortunately a drawback of any democratic election system. Any system where you have an institution which is able to overrule a democratic vote of the electorate is by definition undemocratic. There are of course lots of other voting systems than first-past-the-post which promise more democratic ...

31

Yes, this is called "Combined Approval Voting", "evaluative voting", or "dis&approval voting" and has been proposed and studied by a number of people, including exit poll tests in France. (I've also seen people say that the correct name is "Net Approval Voting", but the people who say that seem to be the only ones calling it that.) It's mathematically ...

30

What you're describing sounds like a form of liquid democracy - described by Blum & Zuber (2016)1 as: a procedure for collective decision-making that combines direct democratic participation with a flexible account of representation. Its basic model consists of four components that can be stated as follows: All members of a political community that ...

28

The reason why this was established is that the United States was originally conceived as, well, a union of states. The United States Constitution is, in some sense, a treaty between 13 sovereign entities. The president isn't elected by the people of the US, they're elected by the states. The states choose to assign their votes according to how their ...

27

I'm not aware of any official name for what you're proposing (which basically combines referendum with candidate-matching). The closest - which isn't very close - I can think of is voting for party lists, with the party list being a secret before the election and you only know the party platform; in a multi-party state. However, there are major flaws in ...

26

There is a strategic reason, and a philosophical reason, but they are related: With something like the current range of views in the UK, it is very unlikely that Labour could ever win a majority under PR. They would need to form a coalition, and probably a 3-way coalition with the Liberals and the SNP. And while there is some political overlap between the ...

25

There are lots of arguments which could be made against a voting system, like being too complicated to understand for the average voter or requiring so much work to fill out that many voters will start filling in preferences arbitrary. But the most likely barrier to changes of voting systems is that in most legislations, those people who could change the ...

25

The system you are looking for is called reserved political positions. Labour unions or political parties do have systems to ensure this. For example, for a board of seven member's representatives, the elections may be pooled in three groups: Five members are elected where candidates can be anyone. One member is elected from an all-women shortlist. One ...

24

No, it's not possible. At least, not without violating multiple fundamental principles of democracy or making it seriously vulnerable. This is primarily because of the authenticity vs. voter anonymity problem. Consider this: A voter must be a citizen (Authentic) Their voting choices must not be known, especially not on a public ledger (Anonymous) The vote ...

24

A certain kind of this voting actually happens in all elections in Latvia. The Central Election Commission’s website seems to have been redesigned recently and I can’t find descriptions/infographics of this in the new design, so I’ll use old images and references to laws. All candidates in an election are split into lists (corresponding to political ...

24

The Russian Federation had minimum turnout requirements for presidential and Duma (parliamentary) elections until 2007, but they've since abolished the rule: Since 2007 the minimum turnout of 50 % for presidential and 25 % for Duma of the registered electorate was abolished. (Source: European Parliament) A number of countries in Europe and elsewhere ...

23

The only way to be demagogue-resistant is to have demagogue-resistant voters. That means voters who can think independently and critically, people who are willing to put the greater good before their own interests, people who are not afraid to say unpopular things, and people who don't demonize others because they say unpopular things. Many of those are ...

21

A minimum turnout is commonly used for referendums. See Referendums by country on Wikipedia, which has an entire column on minimum turnout. Sometimes this minimum is formulated as purely a minimum turnout, and sometimes as a minimum fraction of total electorate which must vote for a measure for it to pass. For example, in Romania a referendum is valid if ...

19

Historically many countries had property or wealth restrictions for voting, which satisfies the letter of the question (one vote is more than zero) but perhaps not its intent. That said, a number of countries also practiced plural voting, where some electors could vote more than once. For example: Belgium: from 1894-1919, some electors got up to two ...

19

The security issues in electronic voting are completely unlike any security issues anywhere else. You have to provide assurance that every legal vote has been correctly recorded and added to the total of the candidate for whom it was cast, but at the same time prevent any voter from proving to a third party which way they voted. These two are fundamentally ...

18

Why is this voting system used in so many countries? Because it is simple and easy to count. Each person votes for one candidate. The candidate with the most votes wins. Contrast it with the fairer single representative alternatives. Ranked voting (IRV/Instant Runoff Voting, Condorcet-compliant methods) requires listing out all the candidates in ...

16

One alternative is to let a totally impartial computer decide, based purely on census data and geography, with no details about the political (or other) makeup of the population. Brian Olsen's open source census-based B-districting algorithm aims for: Across all districts and all people, The best district map is the one where people have the lowest ...

Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible