In the following article, Libertarianism: The Two Party System and the Monopoly of Ideas, And Ranked-Choice Voting as a Possible Solution, I discussed the challenges faced by minority parties (such as the Libertarian Party), the concept of the "throw away vote," and also introduced the concept of Ranked-Choice Voting as an alternative and more equitable system of voting to our current system.
However, I have managed to rediscover a video I had seen long ago and have gained some added perspective from the insights of the video, which relied on simulation in order to discuss the benefits and flaws of various systems: the current Plurality System, The Runoff System (AKA the Ranked-Choice System), and the Approval System.
With these new insights in mind, I shall begin to discuss these three systems of voting and will hopefully provide a useful analysis of each in order to offer my own contribution on the discussion, in hopes that this will aid in your own decision-making in regards to the most equitable system, and to promote alternative voting systems for change in the government.
First, let me give acknowledgement to the video of which I am speaking...
The video, which can be found on youtube, is called "Simulating Alternative Voting Systems" by the channel "Primer." (Click Here to Watch the Video)
I have watched many videos from Primer spanning across many different subjects, and I have always enjoyed them. I would highly encourage you to not only watch the video in question but to check out his other content as well, as I find that his videos are both entertaining and informative.
What is Plurality Voting?
Plurality voting is the current dominant system of voting in the U.S.. Each voter casts one vote for one candidate, and whomever reaches the majority threshold first becomes the winner of the election.
This system of voting works fine when there are only two candidates, as Primer explains and demonstrates in the video, but when you have an election between three or more candidates, this can create a problem known as "the spoiler effect."
The spoiler effect occurs in the exact kind of situation that I described in my earlier article, wherein voters who prefer one candidate might get the least favorable result if they voted for their candidate instead of the candidate they most hope to see win.
For example, assume that the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, and the Libertarian Party were the only three parties for consideration, and that each of these parties had only one candidate to vote for.
In this case, because Republicans and Libertarians are often fighting for free market capitalism, Libertarrian voters would likely prefer a Republican to a Democrat. If they stay true to their party, the may dilute the votes for Republicans and cause a situation where the Republican candidate loses and the Democratic candidate wins. But hypothetically, if they voted for the Republican candidate instead of the candidate that most-closely matched their own ideological beliefs, the Republican candidate may have won instead.
Clearly, given this understanding, the Plurality System of Voting is prone to the spoiler effect and therefore is not an equitable system of voting.
The problem becomes even worse when you introduce the Green Party and a myriad of other minority parties, each competing separately for voters who might vote for one party or their own.
Plurality Voting leads to a system where a strategic voter is required to betray their own political affiliation in order to get the most desirable result, further reducing the efficacy in the party they actually want to win.
What is Ranked-Choice Voting?
As I briefly discussed in my previous article, Ranked Choice Voting is a popular alternative to Plurality Voting and is objectively more equitable.
Ranked Choice Voting is a system of voting wherein voters are asked to rank their choices of candidates from first to last.
In the example in Primer's video, he again offers a system with three candidates, but a Ranked-Choice Voting system could theoretically have any number of ranked choices. Let us assume, however (for the sake of discussion), that voters are asked to make a list of their top three candidates.
In Ranked-Choice Voting, the top pick for each voter is examined first. If these first-choice votes produce a majority winner, then that candidate is given the position. However, if not, the lowest-ranking candidate is removed from consideration, and those voters who's first choice was eliminated will then have their second choice added to the tally. This process is repeated again for the third choice, and again for however many ranked choices the voter is given.
This system creates a more equitable outcome and allows voters to vote for who they actually want to win without having to worry about losing out on the strategic vote. Moreso, as I pointed out in my previous article, this also allows voters to vote for multiple candidates of the same party.
The example of this I gave before was in regards to Democrats that wanted to see Bernie Sanders get elected into office. In a Ranked-Choice voting system, these voters could vote for Bernie Sanders as their first choice, while still voting for Biden or any other candidate as their second choice. In that regard, they could vote for exactly who they want without fear of losing out.
Though popular, this system is not without it's flaws either.
As pointed out in Primer's video, this system of voting can sometimes lead to "The Center Squeeze Effect."
The Center Squeeze Effect, to the best of my understanding, happens when a moderate candidate enters the race and there are candidates that are on either side of the moderate candidate.
In theory and in practice, the moderate candidate could have one the election if one ofthe sides betrayed their party. However, if each person votes according to their own preference, the moderate candidate could get knocked out of the race, creating another example of the spoiler effect.
However, Primer does point out by the end of the video that, in his estimation (and mine), the Ranked-Choice Voting System is still preferable to the current Plurality System of Voting.
What is the Approval System of Voting?
The Approval System of Voting is a system in which each voter is able to vote for as many candidates as they wish..In a simple system, voters vote, as Primer put it, on a scale from 0 to 1. In other words, you can either cast a vote of confidence for a candidate or you could not. The votes are then tallied up, and whichever candidate receives the majority of approval votes wins.
This again addresses the problem of the "throw away vote" and allows voters to vote for whichever candidate their believe is the best candidate without having to worry about giving an advantage to their least favorite candidate.
Primer points out that, in this system of voting, if everyone is voting honestly, then it will always result in (paraphrasing) the most equitable result, where the winner of the election is the one that gains the greatest amount of approval.
However, again, Primer points out that this Approval System of Voting is not without flaws either. The flaw in the Approval Voting System is known as "The Chicken Dilemma"
The Chicken Dilemma is caused when two candidates are similar in political position (and therefore voter approval). In an honest system, let us assume that the Republican and Libertarian candidates are the two most popular candidates, but that because they are similar in political position, they receive a similar amount of approval votes. Therefore, in this scenario, assuming thatthe Democrat candidate is the least favored candidate, the Democrat candidate should lose and whichever of the two (Republican and Libertarian) candidates is most popular should win the election.
However, let us say that the Democrat received 40 votes, the Republican received 45 votes, and the Libertarian received 50 votes.
Some of the voters who preferred a Republican candidate may have also voted for the Libertarian candidate, but the Libertarian candidate was the clear favorite.
If the voters had the foresight to predict the results of the election, 6 of those Republican voters who also voted approval for the Libertarian candidate could have instead voted for only the Republican candidate, forcing their favorite candidate to win.
If so, the Democrats would still have 40, the Republicans would still have 45, but the Libertarians now have 44, causing the Republican candidate to win.
Now, instead, let's say that 11 Republicans who would have voted for both a Republican and a Libertarian candidate if they were being honest, now instead vote only Republican.
And now let's assume that 6 of the Libertarian candidates who would have cast an approval vote the Republicans only voted Libertarian.
Now, the Democrats still have 40 votes, the Republicans now have 39, and the Libertarians also have 39, making the Democrats the clear winner, even though (if everyone was voting honestly) the Libertarians would have won the election.
This is the problem created by the Approval Voting System, but I feel that it is much less likely to occur than the problems caused by the other two systems of voting.
For one thing, in an Approval Voting System, the votes are all cast at the same time with no insight beyond speculation as to the actual results of the voting. Therefore, any kind of strategic voting is based solely on educated guesses.
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, I believe that most people are mostly honest, and therefore will vote based on their own judgment of who they approve of and not based on an imaginative strategy.
Therefore, it goes without saying that I cast my Vote of Approval for the Approval Voting System. Having considered all of the available voting systems offered to me, Approval Voting seems like the clear winner here.
And furthermore, as Primer again points out, the Approval Voting System is not limited to a range of 0 to 1. In an approval voting system, you could have any scale, such as 0 to 10, in which you are expressing your individual confidence in that candidate based on where you place that candidate on the scale.
Because this presents a much larger simulation challenge than a binary 0 or 1, I am sure this is the reason why Primer did not endeavor to demonstrate what this would look like in simulation
However, I believe this further enhances the benefit and utility of this type of voting system because it creates an even more honest reflection of each individual's preference.
However, if we consider the strategic voter, in a political system where the Republicans, Libertarians, and Democrats were the only three parties, a strategic voter might give both Republican and Libertarian candidates a full 10, and give the Democrats a 0, leading to not change in the election results whatever.
Likewise, this greater range of scale might encourage the Chicken Dilemma by giving voters the ability to betray their honest choice by a measure rather than an absolute.
So while I am convinced that the Approval Voting System might be the best option to produce the most equitable outcomes, there may be a good bit of room for debate as to whether we should do a 0 to 1 scale or some greater scale.
In conclusion, by my own estimation, the Approval Voting System is the most fair and equitable system of voting which would produce the most honest results and give minority parties a fair chance of competing with the Majority parties.
Furthermore, the Plurality System of Voting is inherently flawed and inequitable, and either the Ranked Choice Voting System or the Approval Voting System would be preferable.
Tell me what you think down below. These alternative voting systems require an exercise of the mind in order to determine the best system, and there is some room for debate.