Can ME Voting Save the World? I'm sure this can use correction, but I think we could perhaps summarize the history of "democracy" by saying that societies have basically been governed by competing gangs, over the past few thousand years, with many people used as slaves, conscripts or otherwise brutally exploited, and with some rulers relatively benevolent. The rulers learned to brainwash children, making populations easier to control, and as technology progressed and societies became more prosperous propaganda began to replace brute force as the primary method of governance. But as people became smarter - especially with the arrival of the printing press and then the industrial revolution - they began to challenge rulers, saying "No taxation without representation," and various movements for democracy, based on the holding of elections, developed. Governments gradually acceded to the pressure and elections began to be held - first with a relatively small percentage of people allowed to vote and run for office, with voting rights gradually expanding to the present situation wherein most governments hold elections and claim to be democratic. But does the mere holding of elections constitute democracy? We all know that it doesn't, as elections need to be "free and fair," not only with at least most citizens allowed to vote and run for office but with it assured, first of all, that the ballots will be counted accurately. But there is another extremely important criteria which needs to be met, to which relatively little attention has been paid to date, and that is that the correct method of holding elections, the correct voting system, must be used. The voting system is the procedure which is supposed to elect officials who truly represent the people, but a flawed procedure produces flawed results. It may be that the rich and powerful people who we all know wield hugely disproportionate influence in governments don't feel a need to try to attempt fraudulent ballot counting - which would be a very serious crime if uncovered - because the flawed voting systems which are used for elections more or less guarantee that only people who will do their bidding can be elected. The use of flawed voting systems does not elect officials who truly represent the people, as I will show, and the result is laws which oppress us and policies which don't represent us, while many of our tax dollars are used for enterprises which are largely designed to make the rich richer - which situation has greatly contributed to numerous catastrophes, including the very real threat of nuclear war. So under the circumstances, I think it is imperative that we turn our attention to the voting system issue and, to start, ask the very simple question, "What is the best, most democratic way for a group of voters to select one choice out of three?" You would think that with all of our technology - and with all the lip service which is paid to the importance of democracy, every day - that there would be a general consensus on the answer to that question, but amazingly no such consensus exists. What does exist is complex analyses in the academic field of "election science" and various movements trying to implement "Ranked Choice Voting," "Approval Voting," "Star Voting," or some other system. I have pondered the question of how elections should be held for many years and feel very confident that I have the answer, which solution would make governments profoundly more democratic, far less controlled by the oligarchs who are diminishing and threatening our lives. And I feel that I can explain the entire issue in terms the average person can understand, as in fact it's really pretty simple compared to many other issues we are being confronted with daily. I think the reason election science hasn't come up with the answer yet (some people in the field may have) is a simple methodological mistake, which I'll explain as I talk about the issue. So while it isn't good news that there is yet another somewhat complex issue which we very much need to understand, it is great news, in my opinion, that it isn't rocket science and there is in fact a clear solution we can work to implement, which would change things greatly for the better. Of course you shouldn't trust anything I say, but if you care about democracy and follow the logic I will present then I think you will see it is sound and we don't need to trust "experts" whose opinions may be compromised. If history has shown one thing, I think it is that "Rights are not granted; they are claimed." When there are only two choices in an election - and we are first talking about single-winner elections, the simplest and most common type - the voting system which needs to be used is simple: each voter selects one of the choices and the one selected most is the winner. That's called the "Single-Vote," "Single-Choice," or "First Past the Post" method of holding elections which works perfectly when there are only two choices. But when there are more than two choices the situation changes dramatically. For example, there can be an election in which two liberal candidates who each receive 33% of the vote are defeated by a conservative who receives 34%, even though two-thirds of the voters are liberal (or vice versa, of course). This basic flaw in the Single-Vote system is known as "vote splitting." "One man, one vote" may have been progress, at one time, from previous elections in which the vote of some men carried more weight than others, but it's a voting system we must reject now. Primary use of the Single-Vote system, as in the United States, tends to result in a "two-party system" (mitigated by various factors) under which many voters feel dissatisfied that they often or usually have to choose between "the lesser of evils," which causes many people simply not to vote. And it's very important to understand that the voting system which is used for an election not only determines which candidate wins, but it also strongly affects how many candidates the voters have to choose from, how well the voters can express their point of view when they vote, how polls are conducted and the results thereof, how much media attention each candidate gets, which candidates are invited to debates, the order in which candidates are listed on the ballot, whether the candidates receive government funds, and - of extreme importance - how susceptible elections are to manipulation by well-funded entities which secretly sponsor or support candidates they don't really want to win in order to split the vote (as portrayed in the 1949 movie "All the King's Men"). For all we know such electoral fraud may be the rule, rather than the exception, in elections held worldwide. Vote splitting under the Single-Vote system is the fundamental reason why political parties exist - so that voters with a similar point of view can field one candidate in elections - and it is also the reason why many elections require that a runoff be held if no candidate receives a majority of the votes. But the same problem applies when parties hold primaries using the Single-Vote system, so the candidate who is fielded isn't necessarily the one who best represents the voting members - not to mention how the party's leaders are chosen - and holding a runoff only partially fixes the problem. Consider a race in which there are three candidates - a liberal, a centrist and a conservative - who are each the first choice of 34%, 32% and 34% of the voters, respectively. Because the centrist is the natural second preference of both the liberal and conservative voters, he or she would defeat both other candidates in separate two-way races by margins of about two-to-one - but doesn't even qualify for the runoff. And note that this same flaw applies to "Ranked Choice Voting," which has become somewhat popular in recent years. If Ranked Choice Voting is the most democratic method of holding elections, we are in serious trouble. The so-called "Approval Voting" method - whereby voters are allowed to approve more than one of the choices and the choice approved by the most voters wins - would work much better in the above example, because many of the liberal and conservative voters - especially those who only slightly prefer their first choice over the centrist - would likely approve both their first choice and the centrist, to hopefully prevent their least-preferred choice from winning. Note: I intend to provide more details on many of the things I'm saying later, this post is just to provide a general overview of the situation and to present the basic rules of the system I've come up with, which I call "Multichoice Elimination Voting" ("ME Voting"), to hopefully get some discussion going. Under Approval Voting a "Condorcet candidate" - one who would defeat all of the others in separate two-way races - will always win if the voters have reliable polling information and vote as intelligently as possible. Theoretically there should always be a Condorcet candidate in an election, because if there isn't that means that there's a circular tie in which, for example, the voters, as a collective entity, are saying, "We like apples better than oranges, oranges better than cherries, and cherries better than applies" - which is, of course, bananas. But circular ties will happen to the extent that the voters base their vote on personality rather than politics and character (defining character as the perceived trustworthiness of a candidate to follow through on promises made while campaigning). But the voters don't always have reliable polling information, of course, so Approval Voting can sometimes fail miserably. For example, in a race between a liberal, centrist and conservative who are each the first choice of 74%, 12% and 14% of the voters, respectively, if the voters think all three candidates have an equal chance of winning - and vote as intelligently as possible - the centrist candidate will more than likely win. Approval Voting also doesn't let voters distinguish between the choice(s) they approve, which can be frustrating and cause them not to vote optimally, and it doesn't fully solve the problem of vote splitting - especially if one or more of several liberal candidates, for example, say to the liberal voters, "Only vote for me" (for honest reasons or to help a non-liberal win). Even if a runoff is held after the initial election, as is done in St. Louis, a Condorcet candidate can easily not qualify for the runoff (the more candidates the more easily). And then there are rating systems like Star Voting, and ranking systems like the "Borda" system, about which much has been written, but which simply don't work because they discriminate in favor of dishonest voters. For example, if there are three candidates - A, B and C - and you are instructed to rate them on a scale of 0 to 10; if your honest ratings are 9, 7 and 5, respectively, but polls which you consider reliable tell you that only A and B have any chance of winning, you are then tempted to rate A 10 and B 0. So people who rate honestly in such circumstances are discriminated against - and if all the A and B voters do that then C, the choice least preferred by the voters, can win. That's why Ranked Choice Voting is the best of those systems which simply instruct the voters to rank, because the second choice on a ballot receives no credit until the first choice is already out of the race. The fundamental methodological mistake being made in the field of election science is, I think, the use of example elections in which there is no Condorcet candidate, in which the voters are in self-contradiction. I think the issue should only be considered using example elections in which there is such a clear winner - and then a very simple model can be used for comparing systems, with no need for advanced mathematics or computer simulation. Doing otherwise gives too much power to the people who base their vote on personality rather than politics and character, which I don't think is good for society. So considering the flaws in the above methods of voting, what needs to be done, essentially, is to give voters every option for expressing themselves which cannot be abused by dishonest voting when they feel they have knowledge of how other voters are likely to vote. And that means letting them both 1) approve more than one of the choices, and 2) rank the choices in order of preference so that their perspective is more accurately expressed and an "instant-runoff" process can be used to determine which choice best represents all the voters. Thus, ME Voting is a synergistic combination of Approval Voting and Ranked Choice Voting, employing the strengths of each to overcome the weaknesses of each. Here are the basic rules as they could be explained on a ballot. This is one among several ways the system can be presented. I'm sure the wording can be improved but this is the best I can do now. _______________________ Dear Voter, This election is being held using Multichoice Elimination Voting, a voting system which allows you to: 1. Approve more than one of the choices, so you can indicate which choice or choices you consider to be acceptable under the circumstances of the election - e.g., in light of what choices are on the ballot and how you think other voters are likely to vote; and 2. Rank the choices, or as many as you care to, in order of preference, so your point of view is more accurately expressed and an "instant-runoff" procedure, as explained below, can be used to select the choice which best represents all the voters. Before you vote, read everything below so you clearly understand how the system works. A fuller explanation, comparing different voting systems and including tips for voting, is contained in the booklet, "Multichoice Elimination Voting," which you should have received in the mail and is on the Internet at ____________. Voting Instructions: In Column A, mark an "X" next to each choice you would like to approve, as explained above. Each such choice will be deemed "Approved." In Column B, rank the choices, or as many as you care to, in order of preference, using whole numbers beginning with "1." Note that your ballot must be consistent, with Approved choices ranked the highest. So, for example, if you approve two choices in Column A you must rank them "1" and "2" in Column B before you can rank any other choices. Decision Method: The rankings in Column B will first be checked to see if any choice is the Number 1 ranking of a majority of the voters. If so, that choice will immediately be declared the winner. If not, then the choice Approved by the fewest voters will be eliminated from the race, and for each ballot on which that choice was the Number 1 ranking, all lower-ranked choices, if any, will be moved up one ranking (e.g., the Number 2 ranking will become the Number 1 ranking) and it will again be checked to see if any choice is now the Number 1 ranking on a majority of the ballots which still have a Number 1 ranking. If so, that choice will be declared the winner and if not then the same process will be repeated until one choice has a majority of the Number 1 rankings and wins. If two or more choices were Approved by the same number of voters and one is due to be eliminated, the elimination tie will be resolved as explained in the booklet referenced above. Voting Statistics: Note that all aggregate voting statistics will be made public after the election, so even if you think your No. 1 ranking is likely to win immediately you should still complete both voting columns if you want your point of view to be expressed in them as fully as possible. The voting statistics may be used as the basis for delegating funds or other benefits. __________________________ While I think the above presentation best conveys the logic of the system and would help voters to vote intelligently, they could alternately be instructed to rank first and then approve, or three voting columns could be used. We could also consider adding a rule that Approved choices must be ranked, which would be somewhat authoritarian but might confer some benefit. The rule requiring Approved choices to be ranked highest is essential, though, otherwise a dishonest voting strategy could be a good bet in some circumstances. It's not impossible for a dishonest strategy to be successful under ME Voting, but it will always be counterproductive if the voters being targeted vote intelligently. I'll go into those issues, how elimination ties should be handled, and how a ballot should be processed if one or more rules are broken later. Knowing that I've made mistakes in the past I don't want to say I'm 100% sure that ME Voting is the best possible voting system but I strongly believe that it is - the only one for which no example election can be postulated in which a Condorcet candidate loses (assuming the voters vote intelligently, if they don't any result is possible, of course) - and that its implementation would have profound consequences in terms of how democratic governments are, in these critical areas: 1. Number of Choices. Because ME Voting solves the problem of vote splitting, people would not be discouraged from running for office out of concern their candidacy could easily cause another candidate with similar views to lose - so voters would generally have considerably more choices in elections. 2. Freedom of Expression. Under ME Voting voters would be able to express their point of view more accurately than they can with any other system which isn't otherwise flawed (e.g., rating systems as explained above). 3. Correct and Best Winner. The system would generally select the Condorcet candidate or the one with the greatest overall support. It may also discriminate in favor of the most concerned voters who follow the news and know, as best it can be known, how other voters are likely to vote. 4. Resistance to Manipulation. The system would be much more if not fully resistant to the kinds of electoral manipulation described above. Another consequence of implementing the system would be the downgrading of political parties, which could be said to be the gangs which run governments today. With the vote splitting problem solved not only would inconvenient runoffs no longer be needed, but political parties - which are fundamentally undemocratic organizations that ask voters to endorse a platform of positions they may only like some of - would also no longer be needed, and would gradually be replaced, I suspect, by smaller, more narrowly focused organizations. We would then have a multi-candidate, rather than a multi-party, system. At this point you may be thinking, "Sounds interesting but the voters will never go for it, it's too complicated." If so then I disagree, although I know it will take some time, as the system simply gives voters more freedom, more options, more power - and voters can still only approve one choice and not rank, or rank one choice and not approve, as they presently do under other systems. I think that sooner or later thoughtful and well-known people will endorse the system and then more and more voters will focus on the issue and see that ME Voting - or whatever we choose to call it - is simply the most democratic method of holding elections, which is very much needed in our world. Then we will have a grassroots movement to demand that the system be implemented. Yes, Ranked Choice Voting is a step up from Single-Choice Voting - and Approval Voting is a step up from Ranked Choice Voting (which I think a lot of people aren't seeing because the organization promoting Approval Voting isn't explaining it all that well) - but again, the issue isn't rocket science, I think you will agree, and with the world in as much trouble as it is, I think people will see that we need to get this done as soon as possible. And, with some adjustments to the decision method process, ME Voting can also be used for multi-winner elections - whether the winners are to have equal or proportional power in the governing body. So-called "proportional representation" voting systems are also somewhat flawed, as we can also discuss, but I think we should first focus on single-winner elections, the most simple and commonly-used type. There will inevitably be obfuscation by people with a vested interest in a different point of view. I personally won't trust anyone who uses language or logic the average voter can't understand. You may think that of this article but again it's just an outline with clarification to come. I think we need to trust our own common sense, rather than experts, so the historical growth of democracy can begin to flower. I am busy, unfortunately, but will try to respond to questions and comments. Hopefully we can have a great, productive discussion without personal attacks or divergence to other issues. #Democracy #Voting #Elections #VotingSystems #RankedChoiceVoting #RCV #ApprovalVoting #StarVoting #Freedom
