Talk Elections

We have people that don't like the current Plurality Voting system and others don't like some proposals like Instant Runoff Voting. I offer a more transitional idea. It's like Approval Voting and I call it X- Value Voting.

-   Each voter has 1 vote
-   With that vote, a voter can vote for as many candidates as he/she wants
-   The value of that vote for each candidate depends on how many candidates you voted for (i.e., if you vote for 4 candidates, each candidate gets 0.25 votes)

Typical FPTP election

R   45%: 5.625% (5,625 voters)
D   44%: 5.5% (5,500 voters)
G   6%: 0.75% (750 voters)
I   5%: 0.625% (625 voters)

Combinations:

R; R/D; R/G; R/I; R/D/G; R/D/I; R/G/I; R/D/G/I
D; D/R; D/G; D/I; D/R/G; D/R/I; D/G/I; D/R/G/I
G; G/R; G/D; G/I; G/R/D; G/R/I; G/D/I; G/R/D/I
I; I/R; I/D; I/G; I/R/D; I/R/G; I/D/G; I/R/D/G

R1: 1 vote for R
R2: 0.5 vote for R/ 0.5 vote for D
R3: 0.5 vote for R/ 0.5 vote for G
R4: 0.5 vote for R/ 0.5 vote for I
R5: 0.33 vote for R/ 0.33 vote for D/ 0.33 vote for G
R6: 0.33 vote for R/ 0.33 vote for D/ 0.33 vote for I
R7: 0.33 vote for R/ 0.33 vote for G/ 0.33 vote for I
R8: 0.25 vote for R/ 0.25 vote for D/ 0.25 vote for G/ 0.25 vote for I

R voters: 45,000 voters
R: 5,625+8,437+5,625+1,406= 21,093 (+3)
D: 2,812+3,750+1,406= 7,968
G: 2,812+3,750+1,406= 7,968
I: 2,812+3,750+1,406= 7,968

D voters: 44,000
D: 5,500+8,250+5,499+1,375= 20,624 (+3)
R: 2,750+3,666+1,375=7,791
G: 2,750+3,666+1,375=7,791
I: 2,750+3,666+1,375=7,791

G voters: 6,000
G: 750+1,125+750+187=2,812 (+2)
R: 375+ 500+187=1,062
D: 375+500+187=1,062
I: 375+500+187=1,062

I voters: 5,000
I:625+936+624+156=2,341 (+7)
R: 312+416+156=884
D: 312+416+156=884
G: 312+416+156=884

Total:

R: 30,830
D: 30,538
G: 19,455
I: 19,162

What’s next? Just like in IRV, we have a runoff and elimnate the last ranked candidate. As you may have noticed, in the matchups, the vote has different values. It’s always 1/n, with n being the number of Xs you cast.

In the matchups, we must re-calculate the votes for R, D and G. In some cases, I was voted. When I was the only voted one, all those votes that went to him could either be discarded or go down, in a process of feedback. In the case of 2 voted candidates, the other candidate would get 1 vote; with 3 candidates, the other 2 would get 0.5 vote and with 4 candidates, the other 3 would get 0.33 vote. The totals are calculated again until a candidate does get a majority of the votes. The I only votes would be given to the 3 candidates at a value of 0.33 votes.

Obviously, this continues as so until a candidate gets 50%+1 of the votes. What do you guys think? :)

Quite an interesting idea. I like it.

This is AV (the form of STV used when only one candidate is elected) with equal rankings permitted, and only one ranking available for each voter.

No wonder it seemed familiar.

That's why I consider it a transitional system. Some people nowadays want to vote for more than 1 candidate while others only want to vote for 1. Maybe a more accurate name for this idea would be "Equal Ranking IRV" or something. Could it work in elections?

In Queensland and NSW in Australia, Optional Preferential Voting is used, similar to this. A person may number as many preferences as they wish and the vote remains formal as long as a formal preference exists. It's IRV, but allows people to "Just Vote 1" if they wish (I put that in inverted commas because frequently people are urged to do that by the major parties). It means that people who wish to cast a preference may do so, but people who don't wish to don't have to.

I'm a big fan of IRV but I think the 2 major parties might try to manipulate it their way. If my idea seems too messy, what about this: you can rank your candidates in order of preference (1st, 2nd and 3rd) but you can give an equal preference to more than 1 candidate?

How does your preference get distributed if you equally rank two candidates?

Generally speaking, I trust voters to be able to make their own decisions in relation to where their preferences lie. Parties do hand out How-To-Vote (HTV) cards, giving their party's suggestions as to how to preference, but I think we can trust individual voters to make their own decisions in relation to who to preference, or indeed how many preferences to allocate.

Well, you'd have combinations. The system says that the candidate with the least 1st preferences would be eliminated and their votes transferred. If you voted for a Republican and Libertarian as your 1st choice, each candidate would get 0.5 votes. Assuming that the Libertarian got the least 1st preferences in the 1st round, the Republican would be given 1 full vote, rather than the 0.5 votes from the 1st round. It all depends on the candidates you voted for, since I would suggest that they would be given an equal value of your vote. It's like a pyramid. Vote for 2 candidates = 0.5 votes each. For 3= 0.33 votes each. etc. Once a candidate is eliminated, there would be a transfer of your vote and the other candidates you voted for would get a bigger portion (if not the whole portion) of your vote.