No, you submit an ordered list from most preferred to least preferred. The computer then calculates how the TV show would have ejected them one after another.
Of course, you wouldn’t get influenced by the TV show etc.
Australian here, this is how our voting system works. My method is literally putting the most repulsive politician last and then working my way up until I get to the least-repulsive.
Politicians dropped from the rounds can nominate another politician of similar views to give their votes to, so eventually the whole thing coalesces into politicians from three or four parties getting elected, but still gives the opportunity for minor parties to become major parties should the standing government of the day really piss people off.
It’s a great system. Worth just clarifying that the “nominating” is just the candidate suggesting who to put which numbers next to, not actually them saying who the runoff vote goes to.
You don’t have to do it iteratively, just count the sum of the “out” votes from a single voting and the one with the least wins.
Still not a good system in my view, though…
Elections would take 10,000 years.
There is a system that does exactly this, everyone puts the candidates in their preferred order, and a computer just does the “rounds”.
Probably the best way ever, because you end up with the least disliked choice. IIRC. We closed places at work with a system like this, went very well.
But that’s still voting for your preferred candidates. The OPs proposal is like doing tribal council from the Survivor TV show but for our government.
You have to play the dead grandma card at exactly the right moment.
No, you submit an ordered list from most preferred to least preferred. The computer then calculates how the TV show would have ejected them one after another.
Of course, you wouldn’t get influenced by the TV show etc.
Australian here, this is how our voting system works. My method is literally putting the most repulsive politician last and then working my way up until I get to the least-repulsive.
Politicians dropped from the rounds can nominate another politician of similar views to give their votes to, so eventually the whole thing coalesces into politicians from three or four parties getting elected, but still gives the opportunity for minor parties to become major parties should the standing government of the day really piss people off.
It’s a great system. Worth just clarifying that the “nominating” is just the candidate suggesting who to put which numbers next to, not actually them saying who the runoff vote goes to.
You don’t have to do it iteratively, just count the sum of the “out” votes from a single voting and the one with the least wins.
Still not a good system in my view, though…
Good point. Let’s make it more efficient!
Everybody gets one vote and one veto.
You can vote for anyone, even yourself, but if a single person vetos you, you’re out.
Add up the votes, remove everybody with vetos, and there you go!
This is how we end up with a dog president and honestly I’m okay with that.
Might work harder to shut down USPS though.
That’s pretty much where I’m at anymore.