I'm writing in response to
this diary on MyDD (where I don't have an account), which is a clear and open-minded evaluation of the goods and bads of proposed voting reforms, and a call for new ideas. Along with their advantages, it notes that
instant run-off voting needs long ballots,
Condorcet voting is high-concept, and
approval voting seems very promising but may be, in his words, strategically gamed.
I'd suggest another option, ratings voting, and want to talk about how to make it happen.
(more below.)
I'm skeptical of approval voting because it runs against the grain of idealism and optimism that makes people like to vote. It replaces the hopeful idea that you will go in that booth and select a good leader, with the realistic but not romantic feeling that none of the candidates is a hero and you are just pointing out who you can live with. Unfortunately we live in a world of politics, not game theory, and idealism beats pragmatism. Maybe this is a framing problem with approval voting - I would like to hear from you Lakoffniks about it.
I suggest a modified approval voting system I'd call ratings voting. Each candidate is rated on a scale from 0 to 4. (Sound familiar?) This system is a hybrid of instant run-off voting, since you weight your preferences, and approval voting, since the ballots would be short and existing voting machines (I think) could still be used.
The huge bonus of ratings voting is that the public is already familiar with it. Anyone who has watched the Olympics or filled out a customer satisfaction survey has seen it used. This really sets it apart from the other systems, which take a little work to explain. We need to balance our ideal system with the practical needs of gaining public support.
A subtler bonus of ratings voting is that it selects for candidates with both high approval and low disapproval. Thus, if most Kerry voters hate Bush and most Bush voters are lukewarm to Kerry, it is a big advantage. Candidates will not be able to afford alienating large segments of the population - a "playing to the base" strategy is almost moot.
Is it romantic enough to compete with the traditions and idealism we have invested in a system as old as our nation? It will be criticized for making our elections into a game show. But, it may appeal to the public's love of playing judge and rating things.
How do we make it happen? Frankly we lost ground by not pushing harder after 2000, when there was public outrage over the Nader effect. There are two ways we can push this cause forward now. The first is to act locally, taking advantage of the sloppiness of not having a national voting standard. Oregon seems especially ahead of the curve in voting reform, but where you live is as good a place to start as any. Go to a city council meeting and bring it up. See what happens. The second way to make it happen is to find a way for a large Republican corporation to profit from it. Then it's a sure shot.
Me, I'm dying to super-troll-rate Newt Gingrich in 2008.
empty.