Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fusangite" data-source="post: 2629686" data-attributes="member: 7240">This is a flaw in the multi-member plurality system definitely. In the essay I wrote on why it should not be used for voting on the ENNies winners, I expressed this very problem. There are a few ways around it, one of which, called SNTV (Single Non-Transferrable Vote) you suggest below. SNTV has other wasted vote/strategic voting problems that, while different from the current MMP (mutli-member plurality) system also result in some paradoxes. However, these paradoxes/problems are only evident if there is a significant amount of slate voting in the system.If you are interested in looking at other systems for elections like this, I recommend you consider Limited Vote (like the option you suggest but with the voter casting 2-4 votes), Cumulative Vote (the voter still has 5 votes but can give candidates anywhere between 1 and 5) and Single Transferrable Vote (like the system you suggest but with a ranked ballot to prevent wasting of votes). Each of these systems interacts with local political culture in different ways to produce variable outcomes. I personally think that the tendency of multi-member plurality systems to produce essentially democratic results that do skew to under-represent fringe candidates probably makes it the right system for ENWorld.EDIT: I do strongly support your position that the results should only be visible after the polls close.</blockquote>