Giving Compass
  • Sign In
  • About Us
    About Giving Compass How We Choose Content and Organizations Annual Reflections Our Newsletter
  • Getting Started
  • Learn About Issues
    Topic Guides
    Animal Welfare COVID-19 Criminal Justice Democracy Disaster Relief Education Environment Health Homelessness Immigrants and Refugees Racial Equity Women and Girls
    Curated Articles
    Partner Collections Giving Compass Selections See All Articles
  • Give to Causes
    Issue Funds & Intermediaries Projects Nonprofits
  • Get Involved
    Philanthropy Resource Directory Events Volunteer Opportunities
  • Partner With Us
    Nonprofits Authors Use Our Content Services Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
Sign Up
  • Get the Newsletter
  • Sign In

Three Alternative Voting Methods: Pros and Cons

The Center for Election Science Jul 29, 2019
This article is deemed a must-read by one or more of our expert collaborators.
Click here for more.
Alternative Voting Methods
  •  Share
  •  Save
  • 157 shares
Share

Part three of a multi-part series on voting methods. Read parts one and two.


I spend a lot of time talking to people across the country about our work at The Center for Election Science to strengthen democracy. I’ve found that people are ecstatic to hear that there is a way to do so simply by changing the way we vote. But there are dozens of voting methods out there. So how do we decide which is best?

Well, that depends on who you ask and what criteria they’re using. But as experts in this field, we’ve developed a short list of criteria that we find to be critical for any voting method.

Does it Choose a “Good” Winner?

People often ask me what makes a “good” winner in an election, and they’re surprised when I share that it has nothing to do with the candidate and their platform. What we’re really asking is “How happy are voters with the chosen winner?”

Ideally, the voting method should consistently elect a candidate who makes the average voter feel satisfied with the outcome—not one who leads to further political polarization.

Does it Foster Real Competition?

Nearly 40 percent of voters in the United States identify as independent, yet there are only four independents serving in Congress. Right now, independents can certainly run, but they face a low likelihood of winning as they’re labeled “spoilers” who will make it harder for the similar, mainstream candidate to win a race.

But it doesn’t have to be this way. Other voting methods allow voters to honestly vote for the candidates they like without fearing they’ll be a spoiler. They can even help candidates really see how much support they have from the electorate, even if they don’t win. By allowing candidates to see that they’re supported, even if they’re not the favorite, we encourage those candidates to run and express their opinions. And greater diversity of candidates running means more choice for voters.

Is it Simple?

There are already many barriers that discourage people from voting, from the complicated process to get registered or just the fact that life can be really busy. For that reason, the voting method should remain as simple as possible so it isn’t an additional reason voters don’t turn out to the polls. We also want the method to be simple to implement. Some voting methods require new software that election administrators don’t have. And even if the machine’s software supports a voting method, it may still require added complexities such as counting every ballot at one central location.

The Analysis

So, how do alternative voting methods stack up against these criteria? Unfortunately, this isn’t an exhaustive academic paper on voting methods, so we’ll focus on just a few of the alternative voting methods with the most momentum right now.

Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)/Ranked Choice Voting (RCV)

Probably the only alternative voting method you’ve heard about, after being the first alternative voting method to be implemented at the state level. IRV allows voters to rank the candidates in an election in order of preference, and the candidate with the majority of first-choice votes wins. If no candidate has a majority, the candidate with the least first-choice votes is eliminated, and those voters’ second-choice candidates receive their votes. This process continues until a candidate receives a majority of the vote. IRV does a better job of electing voters’ true favorite candidates than our current method and encourages more competition. But, it can be costly for cities with older voting machines to implement and can lead to unexpected results in tight races.

STAR (Score Then Automatic Runoff) Voting

A newer method, STAR, allows voters to score each candidate on a scale and then the two candidates with the highest scores enter an automatic runoff, with voters’ ballots cast to whichever candidate they scored highest. It hasn’t yet been studied to determine its effectiveness at selecting a “good” winner, but it appears that it should lead to more competition and better winners. It also hasn’t been implemented in an election yet, so some questions about implementation remain.

Approval Voting

Studied since the 1970s and often cited as one of the best alternative voting methods, approval voting simply asks voters to select all the candidates they approve of and the candidate with the most votes wins. It’s been shown to easily elect a “good” candidate and encourage competition. However, this simplicity comes at a cost that frustrates some, as voters can’t differentiate between how much they like or dislike candidates.

As you can see, each alternative voting method has its strengths and weaknesses, and none is perfect. However, all are better than our current voting method, which is why organizations around the country are working hard to see these methods adopted. In the next part of our series, we’ll share more about what The Center for Election Science see as the best solution, and how can you help make that a reality.

____

Original Contribution by Kirsten Elliott, Director of Philanthropy at The Center for Election Science.

  •  Share
  •  Save
Share

Since you are interested in Advocacy and Policy, have you read these selections from Giving Compass related to impact giving and Advocacy and Policy?

  • This article is deemed a must-read by one or more of our expert collaborators.
    Click here for more.
    Foundations Achieve Scaled Impact Without Government

    Foundations have often relied on government as an ally to scale up and sustain the programs they pilot. The Obama Administration’s Social Innovation Fund was built on precisely this model. Yet even before the election, many systems change-oriented foundations had moved away from a strategy based on government funding to achieve scale. Read more about impact investing on Giving Compass More than one year ago, well before the November US Presidential election, I set out to interview the CEOs of nearly two dozen leading US foundations to understand how their thinking about philanthropic strategy had changed compared to five or ten years ago. What I heard, again and again, was an emphasis on “systems change” as their approach to large scale social impact. The challenge today is not merely that we have dysfunctional systems nor that we lack innovative solutions to our society’s problems. Instead, it’s that our country has no unifying narrative that binds us all to a common fate. Too many factions separated by race, gender, wealth, religion, education, politics, geography and more are working toward fundamentally incompatible goals in the false belief that their success is unaffected by the failure of others. Each foundation CEO I interviewed emphasized different aspects of systems change, and no single universal model or framework emerged. Yet five specific practices were mentioned frequently, offering pragmatic guidance for other funders that may want to pursue a systems change approach:   First, these funders work both inside and outside the nonprofit sector, leveraging the market forces that drive for-profit companies and making efforts to improve the implementation and outcomes of existing government programs. Second, they build common ground among key actors by forging cross-sector coalitions. Third, they recognize the importance of the intangible narrative that underlies the public response to our society’s problems and work actively to change that narrative. Fourth, they elevate the voice of lived experience in shaping solutions. Fifth, they reconsider their own staffing, budgeting, and operations to address racial and cultural blind spots, focus on multifaceted problems rather than separate program areas, and develop more active leadership roles for their CEOs and boards. The foundations that have gravitated toward a systems change approach over the past several years did not do so in anticipation of Donald Trump’s election. And yet, those foundations are finding ways to achieve impact with demonstrated success that may well work even in today’s political environment. Read more about advocacy and policy on Giving Compass Read the source article at Stanford Social Innovation Review


Looking for a way to get involved?

Learning with others and benchmarking are key steps towards becoming an impact giver. If you are interested in giving with impact for Advocacy and Policy, take a look at these events, galas, conferences and volunteering opportunities to connect with individuals like you.

Loading...
Learn More

Are you ready to give?

If you are ready to take action and invest in causes for Advocacy and Policy, check out these Giving Funds, Charitable Organizations and Projects related to Advocacy and Policy.

Loading...
Learn More
Connect

Loading...

Loading...

Learn More
Take Action

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Learn More
More from
Giving Compass
  • This article is deemed a must-read by one or more of our expert collaborators.
    Click here for more.
    Policies that Encourage Workers to Show Up Sick Are Legal
  • This article is deemed a must-read by one or more of our expert collaborators.
    Click here for more.
    Preparing Educators to Teach 21st-Century Civics Education
  • This article is deemed a must-read by one or more of our expert collaborators.
    Click here for more.
    The Exclusionary Effects of Restrictive Zoning [Video]
Follow Us
Newsletter

Become a newsletter subscriber to stay up-to-date on the latest Giving Compass news.

About Us
  • About Giving Compass
  • In The News
  • Contact Us
  • Content at Giving Compass
  • Partner With Us
Trending Issues
  • Environment
  • Homelessness
  • STEM Education
  • Equal Pay Act
  • Gender Equality

Copyright © 2021, Giving Compass, LLC

•
  • Privacy Policy
  • User Agreement

Sign in

Your personal information is confidential at Giving Compass. For more information, please visit our privacy policy. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use.