Put simply you just give every candidate points out of 10 and then elect the one with the highest average.
Approval voting (not acceptance, my mistake), simplifies things a bit by only allowing none or all points. Which is the best if you want to vote tactically anyway.
This method sidesteps a couple of the issues that Arrow’s impossibility theorem raises, and is easy enough to understand. Ranked choice is better than first past the post but still has the issue that adding an additional candidate can affect the end result in complex ways.
With approval voting most aspects are easy to understand. Adding or removing candidates trivially has no effect on the rest of the result. And while you can still vote tactically the only real tactic is where you put your cutoff, you should still vote for the option(s) you like best.
Can you describe those? Most people have only heard of ranked choice as an alternative.
Put simply you just give every candidate points out of 10 and then elect the one with the highest average.
Approval voting (not acceptance, my mistake), simplifies things a bit by only allowing none or all points. Which is the best if you want to vote tactically anyway.
This method sidesteps a couple of the issues that Arrow’s impossibility theorem raises, and is easy enough to understand. Ranked choice is better than first past the post but still has the issue that adding an additional candidate can affect the end result in complex ways.
With approval voting most aspects are easy to understand. Adding or removing candidates trivially has no effect on the rest of the result. And while you can still vote tactically the only real tactic is where you put your cutoff, you should still vote for the option(s) you like best.
I like approval the best. Simplest to understand. Works better than ranked in my opinion, and you don’t have to vote for the “lesser of all evils”