[EM] Populism and Voting Theory

[Greg Nisbet]

As I'm sure all of you have noticed, if you attempt to explain a voting
system that is better than FPTP to some average person/non-nerd they will
either:
a) say they don't understand it
b) attack you with some flawed conception of OMOV
c) say that the current system will never be changed

Which system would be the most bang for the buck? What system would take the
least amount of convincing for the greatest gain?

I'd say the two round system. It is really easy to convince people that it
is better, simply say that they deserve the right to be able to vote for
whom they wish on the first go without having to fear wasting their vote.
You are not stepping on the FPTP is bad landmine. TRS is arguably better
than IRV and plurality and it has, IMO, the best chance of passing. It
breaks two party domination reasonably well and people understand it. It
isn't monotone (Oh well), but it gets the important stuff done.

Approval, although simple, takes effort to convince people of. They seem to
think it is unfair to the people who only voted for one person if someone
else can vote for two. It is like your vote is counting twice, according to
them.

Range I have actually managed to do.

I tried Schulze, once, it failed miserably. You have to explain what a
Condorcet matrix is, what a beatpath is, and a lot of concepts that make it
sound foreign (a) and therefore bad (c).

Which system do you think would work best that is actually achievable?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20081016/dc07849b/attachment-0002.htm>