What did we get. Citizens United, lobbyists writing 10,000 page laws riddled with loopholes, and Bills and Administrations which do the exact opposite of what they say.
1) 'Equal Right to Vote' - "...automatic registration, and shift election day to a national holiday."
2) 'Equal Representation' - "ranked choice voting" & degerrymandering
3) 'Citizen Funded Elections' - to align, [money = citizen] rather than [money = moneyed citizen]
There are several different systems that are quite a bit better, including approval voting (simpler) and Condorcet (closest to ideal, still easy to explain until someone asks what happens with a tie, which rarely happens anyway).
As for #3, sure, I'd love to see candidates' election campaigns funded primarily by citizens, at the option of those citizens. That doesn't mean I want to see them funded by mandatory taxes. Where can I cash in my voucher for an "all of these candidates suck" refund, for instance?
#1, on the other hand, seems like a great idea. Could go hand-in-hand with making sure it's a severe crime to deprive anyone or any group of their ability to vote (such as the various stunts that have occurred in past elections where certain districts "mysteriously" had malfunctions).
Condorcet methods are typically even better, but NOT "closest to ideal". The best system (if we exclude "exotic" varieties that are too complex to be practical) is Score Voting aka Range Voting.
It's also plausible that Score Voting and Approval Voting are, in practice, better Condorcet methods than real Condorcet methods.
Co-founder, The Center for Election Science
Approval voting has the problem of electing a candidate that's acceptable instead of one who the majority actually likes.
Also, IRV has a greater tendency to elect the Condorcet winner when compared to FPTP.
Every voting system has its problems but IRV is still a lot better than FPTP.
IRV doesn't eliminate strategic voting. Yes, if A is going to win, then A>B>C is great. However, voting A>B>C rather than B>A>C can cause C to win instead of B. It doesn't "eliminate vote splitting" except in the case where a third-party candidate has no chance; in the case where the third-party candidate actually has a chance, IRV can break horribly.
See http://minguo.info/election_methods/irv and http://minguo.info/election_methods/evaluation .
> Approval voting has the problem of electing a candidate that's acceptable instead of one who the majority actually likes.
And that's a bug? Approval tends to find satisficing solutions, yes. Condorcet does better, though; it's just harder to deploy (but no harder than IRV).
I really like the voucher idea because it solves the issue of "I don't want my tax money being spent on candidates I don't agree with".
One would hope, though that's still wasteful. And without seeing a particular proposal, I don't know whether it would think to include such a provision or whether it would simply decide it knows better how to allocate those funds towards election campaigns based on the people who do use their "vouchers".
> I really like the voucher idea because it solves the issue of "I don't want my tax money being spent on candidates I don't agree with".
There's a much easier way to solve that issue: don't give tax money to candidates.
# 2 Sounds like a move to a Parliamentary System which I'm for.
#1 Well, Unfortunately I'd be more in favor of ensuring voters actually know who and what they're about to cast a vote for. Our Nation was Founded as and is a Republic, The Average American Citizen is not informed enough for us to live in a true Democracy
Edit: I do agree that lots of people don't posses the quality of information to make good voting choices. I just think that isn't a good justification for disenfranchising people.