Currently we use popular plurality voting to try to elect a centrist via compromise voting. But we have to trust the media and polls to know whom to compromise vote for.
Do you trust the media and pollsters are not bought by the two candidates whom they say have a chance of winning?
And getting 120,000,000 americans to organize and compromise and not play chicken with each other is not easy when 20 candidates run.
And 2 is not a choice.
And popular compromise voting favors unknown wishy washy candidates who otherwise would not get a strong support base.
Here is my solution:
1. Tell everyone to vote for their first choice of the 20 candidates.
2. If one gets a true majority of the votes, that candidate wins.
3. If none gets a true majority, each candidate is given whatever percent of the vote they won, and is allowed to debate with each other and do practice votes and give their vote to compromise candidates, with plurality used to determine the final winner in the final vote.
This way,
1. No polls are needed (except to check the accuracy of ballot counts).
2. No voting strategy is possible.
3. 100 candidates can run without vote splitting issues.
4. A centrist is always elected since no extremist will let the other win.
5. Wishy washy candidates will not get as many votes as a strong centrist. And candidates can recognise a true centrist from a wishy washy candidate very well.
6. What Proportional Representation? Change it so the top 2 or 3 are elected, and let candidates split their votes.
If a centrist is small, he should give his vote to the prefered extremist instead of playing chicken over the worse extremist winning. The worse extremist will then give his vote to the centrist to keep the opposite from winning. The centrist will then take his vote back and win.
Just because you get 1% does not mean you are week. It could just mean you had a lot of similar candidates split your vote.
Do you trust the media and pollsters are not bought by the two candidates whom they say have a chance of winning?
And getting 120,000,000 americans to organize and compromise and not play chicken with each other is not easy when 20 candidates run.
And 2 is not a choice.
And popular compromise voting favors unknown wishy washy candidates who otherwise would not get a strong support base.
Here is my solution:
1. Tell everyone to vote for their first choice of the 20 candidates.
2. If one gets a true majority of the votes, that candidate wins.
3. If none gets a true majority, each candidate is given whatever percent of the vote they won, and is allowed to debate with each other and do practice votes and give their vote to compromise candidates, with plurality used to determine the final winner in the final vote.
This way,
1. No polls are needed (except to check the accuracy of ballot counts).
2. No voting strategy is possible.
3. 100 candidates can run without vote splitting issues.
4. A centrist is always elected since no extremist will let the other win.
5. Wishy washy candidates will not get as many votes as a strong centrist. And candidates can recognise a true centrist from a wishy washy candidate very well.
6. What Proportional Representation? Change it so the top 2 or 3 are elected, and let candidates split their votes.
If a centrist is small, he should give his vote to the prefered extremist instead of playing chicken over the worse extremist winning. The worse extremist will then give his vote to the centrist to keep the opposite from winning. The centrist will then take his vote back and win.
Just because you get 1% does not mean you are week. It could just mean you had a lot of similar candidates split your vote.