Saturday, October 08, 2016
A better way of voting
Given the fact that we really have only two choices to vote for president, shouldn't we switch to ranked voting? This switch is especially needed this year when both candidates are the poorest we have ever had. Most of us like neither candidate but must vote for the lesser of two evils. How many of us will vote at all?
Ranked choice voting is used around the world - Australia, Ireland, London - and in ten US cities. It's even used for the Oscars.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I'm not sure it would work in U.S. presidential elections. The electorate is so used to only two candidates. I guess it would only work if the nomination process was changed to allow more candidates from each party. Just putting Jill Stein or Gary Johnson on the ballot (which they are in certain states) surely wouldn't work as they get so few votes anyway. I've always been a believer in proportional representation. It takes time for minority parties to build up MPs (or Congressional reps) but I think it would work better eventually. Many countries use this system and find it advantageous, including Australia, New Zealand, and Germany.
As John Adams wrote in his 1776 essay, 'Thoughts on Government':
"It should be in miniature, an exact portrait of the people at large. It should think, feel, reason, and act like them. That it may be the interest of this Assembly to do strict justice at all times, it should be an equal representation, or in other words equal interest among the people should have equal interest in it."
The problem is, when two parties hold all the power, they're loathe to change the system that advantages them. Many Brits have, over time, tried to change the voting system in the U.K., and failed.
Post a Comment