Voting A Different Way
Ever ask: Why don’t we do minimal science with US voting? Science doesn’t proceed along either/or questions about human preference: Yes! To number 1. Or Yes! To number 2. Or screw this crap, I’m not voting.
Science doesn’t do that.
Why doesn’t our polling at the polls tell us what really matters to people?
Science does that. But only if we let it.
Science deploys a reliable method know as a Likert Scale (named after the inventor). We can too. So we don’t fall into the trap of the 2-Party either this/or that system. We have a scale of preference among presidential candidates—a Likert Scale—that looks like,
Strongly Dislike 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Approve
1 is extreme disapproval
7 is extreme approval
4 is in the middle (opt out of any greater or lesser preference)
Please rate 1-7
That way we can see the more than Mega-Money establishment candidates and their twisted parties. We can see in our ballots who are actually much more approved than we realized. It doesn’t have to be the old Democrat v. Republican false dichotomy. We have so many more bright people out there than that. They really want, they really deserve, something better at the polls than a 2 party head-lock.
Our election outcomes would look like,
Candidate A: 5.1 (Big $)
Candidate B: 4.9 (Big $)
Candidate C: 4.3
Candidate D: 4.4
That’s science. New ideas, new parties: Now we see them and hear their voices. I like the Likert.
Not “Candidate A Wins resounding Victory!” And then have to listen to 4 years of lies about their “popular mandate”.
This is how an actual election can inform us. Not simply “decide the issue” and trash can the real story. This is how the “don’t throw you vote away!” arguments can be vanished.
Our current way turns the real vote results above into,
Candidate A: 49.0%
Candidate B: 45.1%
Candidate C: 2.2%
Candidate D: 2.3%
All Others: Each less than 2%
Our current way is not accurate. In fact, it’s a lie.
Better plan: Let’s Likert Scale or dis-Likert Scale away. It paves the way to our future, it doesn’t choke it to death with Either/Or deception.
Likert is smart. Our Either/Or argument is stupid. It’s anti-scientific. But the system forces it on us. Think about it. We have to change it. We’re not going Idiocracy anymore. We’re going smart Democracy.
Another simple way exists too. It’s called Ranked Choice voting. For example:
Rank the candidates in order of your preference. 1 being most preferred and 5 being the least preferred with 0 being no vote. Example ballot 1: Candidate 1: (3) Candidate 2: (4) Candidate 3: (2) Candidate 4: (1) Candidate 5: (5)
Example ballot 2: Candidate 1: (3) Candidate 2: (1) Candidate 3: (2) Candidate 4: (0) Candidate 5: (0)
In this system you aren’t voting for one or the other. You are voting for all the ones who you want ranked. With this system you don’t need to be afraid that voting for your candidate will end up putting your most hated candidate in office. If your number one ranked candidate didn’t get elected, your vote goes to your number two ranked candidate, and this process continues until the one candidate is the clear winner.
No system is perfect, but I’m sure most of us can agree that the voting system we have no is broken. It only works for the perpetuation of the two party system.
Written by: Staff Writer