If 20 candidates ran, and each got like 2.5%, 6.3%, 40%, and 21% of the vote, etc, and we told them they could give their votes to other candidates but the one with the MOST votes will win even if not a majority...
Would they just pout and let the current winner win since they don't care about who wins if it is not them?
Or would they actually elect a centrist to keep their polar opposite from winning?
Think their campaign contributers would be more caring and pressure the candidates to at least get a centrist elected?
Only reason I ask is my voting idea depends on them caring. If you used my idea for a beauty contest, and gave each hot woman whatever percent of the vote she won, and told them they can exchange votes, but the one with the most votes will win, we all know that would not go over well, and that popular instant runoff would be better.
Would they just pout and let the current winner win since they don't care about who wins if it is not them?
Or would they actually elect a centrist to keep their polar opposite from winning?
Think their campaign contributers would be more caring and pressure the candidates to at least get a centrist elected?
Only reason I ask is my voting idea depends on them caring. If you used my idea for a beauty contest, and gave each hot woman whatever percent of the vote she won, and told them they can exchange votes, but the one with the most votes will win, we all know that would not go over well, and that popular instant runoff would be better.
