The Voting System That Should Replace Every Election

> Or vote for someone you actually believe in even if they are not likely to win. Maybe I'm crazy but I believe voting for the lesser of two evils No you are not crazy, you just haven't studied the game theory of voting. In our old, outdated first-past-the-post voting system voting, according to game theory you should vote for the less or 2 evils. A vote for a 3rd party that has no chance of winning is no different than not voting at all. Most people intuitively get this, which is why we are stuck with a 2 party system. There are better more democratic system like Maine's rank choice voting. There you can safely vote for your favorite candidate without worrying about the spoiler effect. If you want to learn more: [this video]

I watched the video at your link, but it wasn't very descriptive as to how the votes are actually tallied. This video does a good job of explaining RCV: [this video] Is there a similar video for STAR? I can see the problem with RCV now. It doesn't completely eliminate the spoiler effect, just makes it less likely. I understand how votes are cast in each system and they seem similar. STAR seems like RCV, but you can put multiple candidates in the same rank. I'm not sure how STAR votes are tallied, but wouldn't you be able to implement that same system with RCV? The only difference is same-ranking candidates. Is that the key to STAR's improvement? EDIT: Is it just this simple? You sum their score, then instant runoff the top 2?: [link] I can't tell if it's better or not yet. It still definitely doesn't elect the condorcet winner... which you can see from 3 voters and 12 candidates: Voter 1: 4 for A, 3 for B, 2 for C, 1 for J Voter 2: 4 for D, 3 for E, 2 for F, 1 for J Voter 3: 4 for G, 3 for H, 2 for I, 1 for J It's more contrived than the example for RCV, so I think it's more resistant to spoiler effect, but it clearly happens here. Essentially, every favored candidate higher than 1 is different and they all have the same candidate for their last favorite candidate. As you can see, A,D,G have the most votes, but in 1-on-1 face-offs, J would win most of the elections. Voter 1 likes J more than D,E,F,G,H, and I. Voter 2 like J more than 6 other candidates as well and same with Voter

> All governments are aristocracies. All states are. Not all systems of government are states. > media manipulations of wide populous The media is owned by the same "aristocracy" that controls the state. In the US and other capitalist countries the aristocracy mostly consists of billionaires and a few political "clans" (usually with ties to "old money"). In the USSR the aristocracy was the Bolshevik intelligentsia and former capitalists that formed the bureaucracy. The problem isn't inherent to humanity, it's inherent to centralized systems. The video you linked actually supports this somewhat: a ruler can't rule alone, they need a staff of advisors and delegates to carry out the ruler's orders. But this is only a problem if you try to have a ruler, or a committee of rulers. The usual counter-argument is that decentralized systems don't work at scale. You can have small communities decide things with direct democracy but clearly that doesn't scale because it's harder to reach consensus the larger the group becomes. To address this I would invite you to read into Democratic Confederalism or watch Anark's aptly-titled video "after the revolution"[0] that explores a very similar anarchist/mutualist governance structure. In most of these scenarios the answer to "direct democracy doesn't scale" is a delegate system and it's easy to mistake this for the same representative democracy we're used to but the important difference is that the delegation is not only proportional but volun

The American electoral system is slanted towards an effective duopoly dictatorship with FPTP. Even the most brilliant political analyst will vote against their favourite candidate in favour of one the lesser of two evils that are likely to win. The only way for that favourite candidate to win is to get as much popularity possible. But with many candidates, it's really difficult. Unless, they have a huge amount of money and influence. With bi-partisan decisions such as more security over movement and Internet, American voters have no other choice. Sources: [link] [link] Is your Cat confused about the referendum on the alternative vote on the 5th May? [this video] The Alternative Vote Explained

Some tweaks I'd make: Corporate structure: [link] Electoral system: What we have now - [link] Range voting - [link] Alternative vote - [this video] Single transferrable vote - [link] Marx wrote about the theory of societal evolution; That there are certain phases civilization must pass through. The communism he wrote about would have to be very far down the road, 100+ years (IMO). This does not mean people sit back and do nothing, we still would have to work towards it. (Most) Capitalists profit from the status quo, and work to keep in place systems to maintain their spot in the hierarchy. Thus the antiquated electoral system in the USA, and the top heavy power/pay structures of business. TL;DR: give the average person more of a say/choice in the world they live in (politics/workplace), and they will find their way forward. (IMO)

How important is this privilege if I can maliciously control how you vote? Now imagine the good we can do with real electoral reform (Democrats idea of repealing citizens United is a meager start, but weak lip service to real reform) What we have now - First Past The Post Voting - [link] Range Voting - [link] Single Transferable Vote - [link] Alternative Vote - [this video] Mixed-Member Proportional Representation - [link] Electoral reform is just step 1, something we can all come together for. Something no one could possibly be against. How about if I control who can be voted for? Of course it matters - [link] bonus video: This video will make you angry - [link]