This is why some form of multi-select is needed on ballots. Maybe rank the candidates by which is your favorite. Maybe checkboxes for every candidate you're okay with winning.

[–] Mongostein@lemmy.ca 17 points 1 year ago

Ranked choice. You basically get 6 votes. Your #1 pick gets 3 votes, your #2 gets 2, your #3 gets 1.

Just call them points instead of votes. Voting is the action of making your three picks and you’re only allowed to do that once.

[–] areyouevenreal@lemmy.fmhy.ml 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Lookup Single Transferable Vote

[–] chumbalumber@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago

Holy hell

[–] Korne127@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Or just do a normal proportional parliament in which each party gets as many seats relative to how many votes it gets.

I mean that doesn't work for Presidential elections, you need Ranked Choice voting for that, but still, having a real democracy for the parliaments instead of FPTP would be much better.

[–] ophy 6 points 1 year ago

Yep, Mixed Member Proportional system means that you get to elect someone to represent your area, and know that the overall makeup of the parliament will be proportional to the overall party votes received.

And as you mention, a form of ranked choice voting is still needed for any "finite seat" vote, such as local representatives, where you're electing individuals rather than groups.

FPTP is a horrendous system and all it does is incentivise strategic voting, which is problematic because ideally we should all vote for whatever suits our interests and beliefs, without worrying about whether our votes are being wasted.