# [EM] Two simple alternative voting methods that are fairer than IRV/STV and lack most IRV/STV flaws

Kathy Dopp kathy.dopp at gmail.com
Wed Jan 13 17:06:05 PST 2010

```For those who need a system for substituting for a top-two runoff
election, I devised two fair methods to suggest to her that do not
have all the flaws of IRV/STV. (They both may've been devised by
others before me. My goal was to create a fair method without
IRV/STV's flaws which solve the problem of one person/one vote which
is necessary to get a voting method approved by US courts.
------------------------------------------

I believe that these
alternative systems (below) are also susceptible to the spoiler effect
of a nonwinning candidate changing who wins the election, although I
believe that there is a significant difference between the alternative
methods below and plurality and IRV where a majority opposed candidate
may win the election. In other words, I believe that the winner due to
a spoiler in the alternative method below is more likely to be a majority
favorite.

Both methods below solve the problem of every voter having a vote of
value one and, unlike IRV, treat all voters alike by counting all
their choices

So, here are two possible methods that are fairer than IRV/STV and
which are monotonic (unlike IRV/STV):

1. A rank choice ballot method:

Any number of candidates may be running for office and any number
allowed to be ranked on the ballot.

Voter ranks one candidate vote =1

Voter ranks two candidates, denominator is 1+2 = 3
votes are worth 2/3 and 1/3 for first and second ranked candidates

Voter ranks three candidates, denominator is 1+2+3=6
votes are worth 3/6 and 2/6 and 1/6 for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choice respectively

Voter ranks four candidates, denominator is 1+2+3+4=10
votes are worth 4/10, 3/10, 2/10, and 1/10 for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd and
4th choice respectively

ETC. Just follow the same pattern

2. A point system where a total number of points per voter per contest
may be allocated by the voter to any of the candidates running for
office:

Two candidates running for office, give all voters 2+1=3 votes to
cast.  They may cast all three votes for one candidate or split the
votes any way between the two.

Three candidates running for office, give all voters 3+2+1=6 votes to
cast. They may cast all six votes for one candidate or split the votes
any way they like between the three.

Four candidates running for office, give all voters 4+3+2+1=10 votes
to cast. They may cast all ten votes for one candidate or split the
votes any way they like between the four.

Five candidates running for office, give all voters 5+4+3+2+1=15 votes
to cast. They may cast all 15 votes for one candidate or split the

The benefits of this system are that it:

a. gives the voters more flexibility than plan #1 above as far as
weighting the individual candidates

b. is easy to assure that all voters contribute 1 total vote during
the process by dividing each vote by the total number of votes allowed
for each voter for each contest.

It would, however, require educating each voter to make sure to use
all the points available in any one contest though.

The advantage of these two methods over IRV/STV include:

1. easy to count, precinct-summable (unlike IRV)

2. fair, treats all voters' votes equally by counting all choices of
each voter (unlike IRV)

3. gives each voter a total of one vote total over the entire vote
counting process satisfying the US courts (unlike IRV)

4. is monotonic -- preserves the right to cast a vote that has a
positive affect on a candidate's chances of winning (unlike IRV.)

5. Allows all voters to participate in all the rounds since these
methods require only one (1) round (unlike IRV)

6. can begin the counting immediately without waiting for all the
late-counted provisional and absentee ballots to be ready to count
(without fear of having to restart the entire process again from the
beginning unlike with IRV/STV)

--

Kathy Dopp

Town of Colonie, NY 12304
phone 518-952-4030
cell 518-505-0220

http://electionmathematics.org
http://kathydopp.com/serendipity/

Realities Mar Instant Runoff Voting
http://electionmathematics.org/ucvAnalysis/US/RCV-IRV/InstantRunoffVotingFlaws.pdf

Voters Have Reason to Worry

Checking election outcome accuracy --- Post-election audit sampling
http://electionmathematics.org/em-audits/US/PEAuditSamplingMethods.pdf

--

Kathy Dopp

Town of Colonie, NY 12304
phone 518-952-4030
cell 518-505-0220

http://electionmathematics.org
http://kathydopp.com/serendipity/

Realities Mar Instant Runoff Voting
http://electionmathematics.org/ucvAnalysis/US/RCV-IRV/InstantRunoffVotingFlaws.pdf

Voters Have Reason to Worry