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.


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 ...


49

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 system. This ...


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*...


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 ...


43

Simple plurality voting has very little in its favor in any election with more than two candidates, but the top disadvantage is vote splitting. FPTP only allows voters to vote for a single person, and since the vote can't be transferred, if that person doesn't win that means the voter might as well have not voted at all. Imagine a situation like the ...


37

The mathematical phenomenon you're talking about is Arrow's impossibility theorem. The wiki article has an informal proof. Specifically, the theorem states that there's no way to design a voting system such that all three of these criteria hold: If every voter prefers alternative X over alternative Y, then the group prefers X over Y. If every voter'...


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 ...


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

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 ...


29

The problem you are running into is the conflation of "lobbying" and "special interests." Lobbying, at its most basic form, is attempting to influence a representative to vote a certain way. An election is really nothing more than a special case of lobbying - only instead of influencing a representative, you are attempting to influence all voters. A "...


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 ...


25

There are two ways this can be done. Neither is in the interest of the state to do so. 1. A True Proportional Allocation of Electoral Votes Scenario: Electoral votes are apportioned according to the popular vote, with the winner getting the "round up." e.g. A state with 10 electoral votes splits 53% - 47%. The winner gets 6, the loser gets 4. (...


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

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 ...


22

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

This would depend on what you consider "the desired properties of paper voting". Applied Cryptography lists these requirements for secure online elections: Only registered voters can vote Voters can only vote once Nobody can determine a particular's voter's vote Nobody can change a voter's vote after it's been submitted Nobody can duplicate another voter's ...


20

There a few things that come to mind. Advantages: The votes are a representative sample of the whole population, not just the people who are active enough to want to vote. Because everyone has to vote, the whole country may become more politically literate and they might actually learn what their positions on different issues are, allowing them to make ...


20

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 ...


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 ...


17

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 ...


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 ...


16

At a very simple level, the answer is that not all rights are financial. While it would be simple enough to argue, "You should get as many votes on next year's taxes as you paid this year," it is much harder to argue the logic "You should have more of a say in how we treat Russia" or even "How / Should we regulate abortion" in relation to your ...


16

Voters may not like it. Particularly voters who prefer one of the other parties. Note how German voters went for AfD in areas where CSU wasn't available. This could be seen as a reaction against the lack of more moderate options, as polling suggests that many of those voters preferred CSU. The politicians may of course feel that the current system is ...


15

One attempt that many states in the United States are trying to adopt is to take the power for creating districts out of the hands of elected political officials. Today, in most states the districts are drawn by the state assemblies and obviously they will draw the boundaries in the most advantageous way for their own party's reelection. This became even ...


15

Short answer: yes, it does. People often present variants of this theorem that are a lot weaker than its most powerful version. Whereas Satterthwaite's version only applies to ordinal voting systems, Gibbard's version applies to all deterministic voting systems, including non-ordinal ones. Combining Gibbard's version and a remark made by Satterthwaite, a ...


15

First Past The Post in single winner voting areas does have a number of advantages, which many of the commonly proposed alternatives do worse on: It provides a clear link between the electorate and their designated political representative (multimember systems often tend to be more proportional, but can make it harder for a voter to identify the right ...


14

You're referring (I think) to Arrow's impossibility theorem, and "voting can't be fair" is an extremely common misinterpretation. What it actually says is that no rank-order voting system can simultaneously satisfy all of Arrow's criteria for the ideal voting system. First of all, the theorem only applies to rank-order voting, which is what most people are ...


14

You either have to accept the result, or completely reject it. This is distinct from an statistical exercise, in which you would, for example, modify the raw results to match your sample to the population. Even so, you don't "fudge" the results if you want to be taken seriously. Certain results maybe considered to be "outliers" and handled specially. In an ...


14

What you're describing is a form of disapproval, negative, or anti-plurality voting, although this version (allowing up and down votes) doesn't seem to be widely used, if at all. One possible example of being able to vote either for or against a candidate comes from the Soviet Union in the late 1980's, as described in this 1987 New York Times article: ...


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