As I write this blog, 2012 republican primaries are in full swing. Turn the TV on and all you hear is, "anyone but Romney", or "anyone but Gingrich" etc.
I think the way we vote for anything, and I don't mean just government elections, is fundamentally flawed. Does one vote really make a difference? One vote per choice makes very little difference. Our current system of voting for one candidate only chooses the best of what only a fraction of people want. I will illustrate my point better in the tables below. The percentages represent electoral votes.
So, 53% of people wanted Obama and they got him (My votes breakdown is not accurate but the totals are.) It is all good so far.
Now, let us consider the current polarized environment of our country. There are a lot of "anybody but Onama" folks right now. At the same time, there are many in the "anybody but Obama but not Romney" category as well. There is a good chance that Mr. Romney will win the nomination for the republican party. Considering the momentum Ron Paul has gathered, he may decide to run as an independent. The republican votes will get divided giving Mr. Obama a second term. Consider below a hypothetical scenario.
So, it seems that we would have forced choice of only 33% of the people on others. Fair? No.
My crazy idea (I am sure I am not the only one to think of this the first time) is to allow voting for multiple candidates. Let us say, I want Obama to win, but I may settle for Ron Paul too. So, now let us apply my hypothetical scenario for 2012 to a multiple choice voting system. You will notice that I have moved some hard core supporters to "People with multiple selections" category.
It is obvious from the results above that even though Ron Paul was not the first choice for many people, but 45% of the people thought they would settle for him. In terms of fairness, my system is better than imposing the will of only 33% of the people on rest of the voters.
Well, I know that there is no way, this idea will even be discussed or argued. However, it does make a good topic of discussion by the water cooler.
I think the way we vote for anything, and I don't mean just government elections, is fundamentally flawed. Does one vote really make a difference? One vote per choice makes very little difference. Our current system of voting for one candidate only chooses the best of what only a fraction of people want. I will illustrate my point better in the tables below. The percentages represent electoral votes.
Now, let us consider the current polarized environment of our country. There are a lot of "anybody but Onama" folks right now. At the same time, there are many in the "anybody but Obama but not Romney" category as well. There is a good chance that Mr. Romney will win the nomination for the republican party. Considering the momentum Ron Paul has gathered, he may decide to run as an independent. The republican votes will get divided giving Mr. Obama a second term. Consider below a hypothetical scenario.
My crazy idea (I am sure I am not the only one to think of this the first time) is to allow voting for multiple candidates. Let us say, I want Obama to win, but I may settle for Ron Paul too. So, now let us apply my hypothetical scenario for 2012 to a multiple choice voting system. You will notice that I have moved some hard core supporters to "People with multiple selections" category.
Well, I know that there is no way, this idea will even be discussed or argued. However, it does make a good topic of discussion by the water cooler.