Quadratic Voting
If you like this, you&#x27;ll probably be interested in STAR[0]. It has a really high voter satisfaction efficiency[1]. Pretty much it is the best if you want to account for strategic voting[2] (Condorcet methods don&#x27;t handle these as well, but do have a higher VSE when it isn&#x27;t accounted for, but we&#x27;re talking pretty close anyways).<p>So why Cardinal systems? They are a lot easier than ranked systems. You like two people equally? You hate two people equally? No worries, just give them the same number. You basically have all the advantages in this case (I&#x27;ll mention that Gibbard&#x27;s[3] is an extension of Arrow&#x27;s and it applies here). But why we would want this system is because it makes for the best of both worlds between the &quot;we need parties&quot; and &quot;fuck parties&quot; groups.<p>Let&#x27;s take an example: Pick your favorite outside candidate: Bernie, Tulsi, Warren, Yang. If the general election was using STAR it wouldn&#x27;t matter who the Dems pushed. You could still vote for these candidates and it wouldn&#x27;t help you&#x27;re candidate win. So I&#x27;d imagine a HN ballot could look something like this<p>Biden: 5<p>Gabbard: 7<p>Sanders: 10<p>Trump: 3<p>Warren: 9<p>Yang: 8<p>If Bernie, Tulsi, Warren, and Yang did not get enough votes to win, it would still be like the same election where we are choosing Biden v Trump, even though Biden wasn&#x27;t your first choice. This means you can vote honestly (i.e. which candidate is closest to your opinion and not which candidate you think can win). It entirely removes the &quot;electibility&quot; question.<p>Why cardinal over ranked? One simple answer is that when cardinal breaks down it turns into approval voting. Approval voting is &quot;I like this candidate&quot; vs &quot;I dislike this candidate&quot;. It is essentially the way we pick where to eat with friends. Everyone says &quot;I don&#x27;t know&quot;. So you start listing off places and once enough people say &quot;sure&quot;, you pick that. It doesn&#x27;t get you the best place to eat, but no one is really unhappy either. What STAR does is basically give you the options: &quot;Hate it&quot;, &quot;no&quot;, &quot;ehhh&quot;, &quot;I guess&quot;, &quot;fine&quot;, &quot;yes&quot;, &quot;hell fucking yeah&quot; (that&#x27;d be STAR06).<p>STAR is simple to understand, leads to high voter satisfaction, removes the electibility issue, let&#x27;s parties exist without parties dominating (i.e. other parties can actually compete), easy to pick a winner, and more qualities we like in voting systems (if you&#x27;re trying to make a fair system where people get representatives that represent their ideals). Of course, this does not fix the issues of money in politics, people lying, and all that.<p>This is just one component, but I think an essential component that will have huge effects on any democratically elected system and I think it is something that we really should fight for. It is also easy to sell the idea because everyone wants a more fair voting system.<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;STAR_voting" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;STAR_voting</a><p>[1]<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;electionscience.github.io&#x2F;vse-sim&#x2F;VSE&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;electionscience.github.io&#x2F;vse-sim&#x2F;VSE&#x2F;</a><p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Tactical_voting" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Tactical_voting</a><p>[3] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Gibbard's_theorem" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Gibbard's_theorem</a>