Some of you may have noticed that I recently posted an
election calendar and that keeping with current convention, I allotted time for a runoff. However, going forward this would not be my preferred way of running elections, and I'm curious how other people feel, so I'm opening a consultation poll and discussion. If some kind of consensus emerges, I would like to introduce legislation codifying how we run elections.
To briefly summarize the poll options:
Plurality: Vote for one candidate, whoever gets the most votes wins. Because there's no requirement that the winner get a majority, it's entirely possible for someone to win with a majority voting
against them, and if the opposition splits the vote that winner might even be the least preferred candidate of a majority of voters, so I
really don't like this option.
Runoff: What we're doing now: vote for one candidate, if no one gets a majority have a runoff between the top two. This ensures that the winner has to obtain some kind of majority and won't ever be the least preferred of a majority of voters, but because it goes round by round a candidate who might be the ideal majority consensus candidate (that is, the candidate who is preferred by a majority of voters to every alternative) can get eliminated in the first round before they can get votes in the second. Also, it requires two separate votes.
Approval: Vote for any number of candidates (i.e. the ones you "approve" of) and whoever has the most votes wins. Like plurality, it only takes one vote but avoids the issue of vote splitting because you can approve your favorite candidate as well as compromise candidate in case your first pick can't win. However, it is possible for a candidate who is the first choice of a majority of voters to lose is another candidate is deemed at least acceptable by a larger majority of voters, unless the first group of voters tactically only vote for their first choice. We used this method briefly for delegate elections before.
Instant runoff: Rank the candidates in order of preference. If someone has a majority of first choices, they win, else eliminate the candidate with the least votes and transfer their ballots to the next person on them. Check if someone has a majority and repeat. Essentially like runoff, only with eliminating one person at a time and with only one vote. Like a runoff it ensures that the winner has to get some kind of majority. However, like runoff, while it's less likely because only one person is eliminated each round, the ideal majority consensus candidate may still be eliminated before they have a chance to accrue secondary preferences.
Condorcet: Rank candidates in order of preference. Simulate a one-on-one match up between each pair of candidates, with candidates receiving a vote for every ballot on which they're ranked higher than their opponent. The candidate who wins all of these matches (i.e. the candidate who would be beat every other candidate one on one) is the winner. This is the only method that will guarantee the winner is the candidate who a majority of voters prefer to every other option (assuming one exists), and is my personal preference. We have also used this method in the past.
