• AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    Even single transferable vote/preferential voting, as used in the Australian lower house and (until recently) the London mayoral election, would be an improvement: you’d get to number your candidates in order of preference, giving 1 to your favourite implausible utopians and/or single-issue advocates, but as long as you put your least-disliked major party ahead of the other one, your vote won’t be wasted.

    In fact, one could reduce this even further to two votes: your favourite party and whom you’d want to give your vote to if they don’t win.

    • Buffalox@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      I can see it is suitable for electing a single person, as I understand it you tend to get the least disliked instead of the most liked. I’m guessing least disliked is a better protection against extremes, while not compromising democratic values. Whether this is true in practice though I don’t know.