- 1
- 2
When Math Warps Elections
If Super Tuesday produces a clear GOP front runner, he could be one whom many and perhaps most Republicans will have to hold their nose to vote for in November. Our pick-your-favorite system, known as plurality voting, "may produce a winner who is the least acceptable to the majority of [GOP] voters," says Steven Brams of New York University, a pioneer in the application of math to voting. That happened in the 2000 presidential election, when Ralph Nader got about 95,000 votes in Florida. George W. Bush's winning margin was about 500. "Since a significant majority of Nader voters preferred Al Gore to Bush," says Brams, "the winner was the candidate least preferred by most voters."
One fix for that is approval voting, in which voters choose any number of candidates they deem acceptable. This not only would avert the distortions of 2000, but would let candidates regarded as unelectable draw their true share of supporters. "You don't have to desert your preferred candidate for fear of 'wasting' your vote," says Brams. Hypothetically, if supporters of Joe Biden, who dropped out of the Democratic race after Iowa, didn't have to worry that a vote for him might benefit, say, Barack Obama, whom they like less than Hillary Clinton, they could have shown support for their man and his foreign-policy expertise by voting for both him and Clinton. That might have clarified somewhat how much voters value experience. "Election returns would better reflect the overall acceptability of candidates, rather than being distorted by considerations of electability or about wasting your vote," says Brams. The best-known race decided by approval voting is for secretary-general of the United Nations. That, more than plurality voting, tends to ensure that an extremist candidate cannot best two centrists who split the majority's vote and let the fringe candidate in.
With three viable Democrats remaining, it's unlikely that the nominee will be someone whom most Dems rank their least favorite. But with four viable Republicans, that is a real possibility. If Florida 2000 wasn't enough to get us to re-examine plurality voting, though, grumbling in the GOP ranks probably won't be either. It is said that a nation gets the leaders it deserves. Maybe we also get the voting system we deserve.
© 2008
- 1
- 2
Loading Menu
Member Comments
Posted By: brokenladder @ 02/27/2008 2:36:01 AM
Comment: Saari is no voting methods expert, because he shuns well established facts on this issue and makes an absurd and unfounded case for Borda voting, which is incredibly susceptible to strategic voting.
Range Voting is the better simpler alternative.
Posted By: Rinnovato @ 02/02/2008 8:05:35 AM
Comment: QUESTION: Does Hillary's Health Care Plan cover SUICIDE PREVENTION in the United States Armed Forces????
What no one is talking about is the impact of Hillary Clinton's lack of serious judgment. The Army has reported that 121 Soldiers committed Suicide, with over 2000 attempts in 2007. The stress of long tours in Iraq has forced some young men and women to take their own destiny in hand.
Hillary voted for this war... why isnt she apologizing to all parents who lost their children, either by enemy fire, friendly fire or suicide? She would not admit that she failed in judgment. OBAMA knew the war was wrong, and there was no clear strategy for the U.S. to exit out of Iraq when the mission was completed.
THE TRUTH is that Senator Dick Durbin admitted on the Senate Floor that members of the Intelligence Committee KNEW that President Bush and Dick Cheney were going to war on false pretences. John Edwards, who was on the Intelligence Committee at the time, voted for the war as well. You can watch at the following LINK the statement by Senator Dick Durbin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyonYGeyFb4
Some members of the Intelligence Committee voted AGAINST the War. Why wasnt Hillary's eyes open? She admits in the Senate that she SAW the Intelligence reports: WATCH HER HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkS9y5t0tR0
And on top of all these Suicides, McCain wants to keep them there for 100 years? If Iranians, Al Queda or the insurgents dont kill our troops, they will kill themselves. Not to mention that Al Queda was NEVER in Iraq before Bush, McCain and Clinton Invaded Iraq. But all three wanted Saddam Hussien out of Power and they wanted control of billions of dollars in Oil.
SHAME ON HILLARY CLINTON! Part of Being President is being Accountable!!! Take responsibility for your vote to "Authorize Military Force on Iraq" and finally admit that you were WRONG!
John McCain - This time you have left men behind... to die at their own hand.
Posted By: avfan @ 02/01/2008 12:10:29 PM
Comment: IRV and traditional runoffs are unsuitable for use in partisan elections because of the center-squeeze effect. In a three-way race where the candidates fall into a left-center-right arrangement, where the left and right candidates aren't too close to the fringe, then all else being equal the centrist will be eliminated in the first round.
The approval voting method favored by Brams doesn't have this problem. Approval voting is also much simpler than IRV, and doesn't require IRV's expensive and complicated ranked ballots.