Why doesn't every democracy use range voting? Voters give each candidate/party a score, the scores are added or averaged, and the candidate/party with the highest total is elected.
Doesn't this make more sense than just voting for one person who is the "lesser evil" and ignore all other options because they "can't win"?
There are no democracies, there are democratic countries but no country is a democracy.
This system is racist because under privileged people may get confused and think 4 is best (because it's the bigger number)
Why doesn't every democracy just go back to monarchy? Aren't you sick of the dumb mass destroying countries?
When Youtube had a star system instead of likes and dislikes, everyone just gave the maximum or minimum amount of stars.
That's fucking stupid though.
Let's say I think Clinton's a 3 and Trump is a 5. That's the same as just giving 2 votes to Trump and 0 to Hillary. And why give 2 votes to Trump when you can give 10?
There's no incentive to be sincere with your ratings, which will lead to even more strategic voting than our current shitty system.
No. The real solution is to also count negative votes.
If no one manages to come in with a positive number of votes, then there won't be a government, and you can try again next season.
Why?
Why not just use the ISidewith.com site and whoever you're closest with gets your vote?
Because the masses aren't professional critics. They either think the video was alright and rated it 5 stars like the video creator asked or voted it 1 star because they thought it was shit. Same concept here. People will just give the party they want the most score.
Shit that might actually work.
>What is Arrow's impossibility theorem
There are no good methods of voting if you have more than one voter, from a mathematical standpoint. Every one is flawed in some way.
add a second question to the ballot that says "the incumbent should be hanged if his party loses." Now politicians have an incentive to actually do a good job
that's retarded, party politics is retarded
just use STV on individual candidates
Yes. It's foolproof:
Shillaries vote +1 Shill, -1 Trump
Bernies vote -1 Shill, -1 Trump
Trumpsters vote -1 Shill, +1 Trump
Summa summarum -1 Shill, -1 Trump, nobody get's to be president.
Because politically charged people would simply stack everything on their candidate, while most normies had their votes dispersed.
But the benefit is that you can give every candidate a score, not just two of them. If you like a third candidate as well, you can also give him a high score. This breaks up the retarded system of having two big party establishments.
Say you're a lolbertarian, you may prefer Trump to Clinton so you'd Jew the systerm and write 0:10 but you also want Johnson to do well so you'd 10 and other people might be Repubs but like the Johnson platform and give them a 7 or something. Essentially the two horse race would be unaffected but 3rd meme parties would get a little more visible as people would throw them a bone a bit more safe in the knowledge that they wouldn't just be helping the party they don't like to win.
What does that mean? You can give every candidate a perfect score if you want. You don't have a limited amount of points to give. You rate each candidate.
Suppose I slightly prefer Jill Stein, Trump is my second choice, Clinton my third and I hate Johnson.
Then my vote would look like this:
Stein: 9
Trump: 8
Clinton: 1
Johnson:0
Because then Jews will buy that site and manipulate it if they haven't already.
there was a point where it was impossible to side with Trump more than 85% because not all of his answers were implemented. If that (((coincidentally))) happens to anyone on the day of the election they're fucked
Oh yeah, that's true. But I think I'd prefer people to just rank the candidates. Pretty idiot-proof and its a hard system to game.
Because politicians lie. Look at Crooked Hillary. She is a total liar. So her campaign promises could be very close to what I want, but I neverhteless don't want her to win because I know what her promises are just lies.
So nobody is going to be president.
I can see your point thinking the negative opinion of the general public for both candidates should result in this outcome.
I think this will result in no candidate all the time especially when you've got more candidates.
I'd suggest either +1 to someone or -1 to someone, but not both.
This belongs to the same category as "Y NO DIRECT DEMOCRACY"?
Because people are deranged retards, and letting them influence important decisions is dangerous.
Honestly, to make democracy work, people would have to pay to vote and get tested on all party platforms before they do, forcing them to study. That's the only way you could make popular votes somewhaty effective.
But until we're in that sort of utopian conditions, voting is just tool for citizens to vents their frustrations.
You should design a system that operates decent with the worst intentions of people in mind, not with the hope that everybody would do an honest job. If the latter would be a reasonable assumption, we wouldn't even need voting.
As said earlier by the american, most people will vote 10 or 0, and your sophisticated vote will be overwhelmed by how most people vote.
>subjecting international politics to the psychotic dictatorial whims of trisomal inbreds
That's how you get World War 1, skippy.
See? Clinton scores higher than Trump but I want Trump to win rather than her because she is a corrupt lying warmonger.
Then at least they can give more than one candidate a 10.
However, I don't see why people wouldn't give the candidate they slightly like more than their least liked candidate at least one vote to make sure that the least liked candidate gets the worst overall result.
also Stein has a lot of policies that sound reasonable but would be implemented in a fucked up way
Because either your votes are fractions that add up to one, making your vote for your favorite candidate less worthy and thus increases the chances of your less favorites greater.
Or you can have somewhere between 0 and x points/votes, making the system extremely susceptible to fraud.
Because it would be an unstable result, and not a representation of the majority of voters: Let's say out of ten candidates, one becomes POTUS. All the others received votes to the end, and the others likely add up to be the majority. This means, the POTUS was unelected by the majority. The solution for this is then to create a system that psychologically coerces the people to choose from only two candidates, so that the elected represents the majority of voters, making it a stable result. Pic unrelated
Many answers.
My reply is the same, people are getting duped now anyways.
Scores wouldn't work because it would just turn into votes. I would put the highest for trump and the lowest for everyone else.
Instead, what they need to do is find a way for third party candidates to be voted for without it sacrificing your vote for the primary parties.
What you could do is have everyone vote for who they want, and then the candidate that receives the lowest number of votes is eliminated and you revote with the smaller pool of candidates. Repeat until one person is remaining.