Thought experiments are valuable, allowing better understanding of current practice, encouraging out-of-the-box thinking. and evaluating present practice with other possibilities in a relatively unbiased manner. Albert Einstein was big on thought experiments for scientific insights: this article does it for political insights.
We have used the winner-take-all voting system for so long that many folks are perhaps unaware - understandably - that other systems not only exist but have been widely used elsewhere, some for many years. Winner-take-all voting further exacerbates our "multi-everything" populations, which are more pervasive in this country than many others. Although this thought experiment is long and does require some time to absorb the details, it is time well spent - at least I felt so and got a much better perspective on voting methods by thinking through these scenarios.
In your scenario the Jeffersons, Hamiltons and Douglasses are “politically polarized factions” which would correlate to political parties. But in the P-RCV example the election is nonpartisan.
In my opinion, single transferable voting ensures implementing the will of the majority without repressing the minority - a goal of proportional representation.
A well told story to help people understand how different systems yield different results. I like the notion of "orphaned voters." It's an evocative concept that helps people to understand why they may feel their vote does not count. It understates the problem if anything, but as a simplification, it's a good place to start.
Thought experiments are valuable, allowing better understanding of current practice, encouraging out-of-the-box thinking. and evaluating present practice with other possibilities in a relatively unbiased manner. Albert Einstein was big on thought experiments for scientific insights: this article does it for political insights.
We have used the winner-take-all voting system for so long that many folks are perhaps unaware - understandably - that other systems not only exist but have been widely used elsewhere, some for many years. Winner-take-all voting further exacerbates our "multi-everything" populations, which are more pervasive in this country than many others. Although this thought experiment is long and does require some time to absorb the details, it is time well spent - at least I felt so and got a much better perspective on voting methods by thinking through these scenarios.
In your scenario the Jeffersons, Hamiltons and Douglasses are “politically polarized factions” which would correlate to political parties. But in the P-RCV example the election is nonpartisan.
In my opinion, single transferable voting ensures implementing the will of the majority without repressing the minority - a goal of proportional representation.
A well told story to help people understand how different systems yield different results. I like the notion of "orphaned voters." It's an evocative concept that helps people to understand why they may feel their vote does not count. It understates the problem if anything, but as a simplification, it's a good place to start.