Voting systems and election rules for Accurate Democracy

Primer on Voting Rules

Introduction to voting systems, chapter contents

The best voting rules are inclusive, well centered, and decisive.
The results can make a group more popular, stable and quick.

	The tools get stronger from one voting task to the next:
	Introduction	Tragedies of democracy: What's wrong?
	Eras in Voting	Voting Progress: 19th Century, 20th Century, 21st Century.
	A Small Example	Nine voters: Line up to vote, Plurality, Runoff, Two issues.

	Chief Executive	Instant Runoff Voting: Principle, Merits, Patterns.
	Council Elections	Proportional Representation: Principle, Merits, Patterns.

	Funding Choices	Fair-share Spending: Old Problems, Principle, Merits. New
	Policy Decision	Condorcet & Rules of Order: Principle, Merits, Patterns.
Philosophy. Conclusions. Prints. Next Slide ↓

After this primer shows the need for better voting rules,
the voting workshop will show the simple steps in each tally.
(A pdf version has both plus pictures from PoliticalSim™.)
Then download free software to tally votes.

Introduction

Tragedies of Democracy

These tragedies were caused by voting rules often used by nations and towns, co-ops and corporate boards.

The Northwest U.S. has been ripped apart for 30 years as forestry laws are reversed again and again. Hasty logging in times of weak regulation wastes resources. Sudden limits on logging bankrupt some workers and small businesses. A political pendulum swings; it cuts down forests and species, families and towns.

Agencies and businesses often lose wealth when a council changes hands and changes laws. These reversals are a major cause of war-like politics.

Old ways of adding up votes fail to represent large groups in many places. In North Carolina, there were enough African- Americans to fill two election districts. But they were a minority spread over eight districts. So for over 100 years, they won no voice in Congress. As voters, they were silenced.

Can we end such raging or silent tragedies? Better tools offer real hope; we can stop the tragedies caused by old methods.

Jump to the next slide by clicking the gray link. What's Wrong? ↓

What's Wrong?

Our defective voting rules come from the failure to see there are different jobs for voting; and these require different types of voting.

We all know how to decide the simplest sort of issue: A question with only two answers must be answered yes or no. For such an issue, the “yes” and “no” votes are enough.

But as soon as three candidates run for one office, the situation becomes more complicated. Then a yes-no vote is no longer suitable.

Sometimes we do not want to elect just one official. We want a whole council to represent all the voters. For this we do not need a system that divides voters into winners and losers. What we need is a way of condensing them, in the right proportions, into their chosen leaders.

Eras ↓

Eras in Democracy

The 1800s: Winner-Take-All Districts lead to Off-Center Councils

Some English-speaking nations still count votes by England's old plurality rule. It elects only one representative from each district; and winning it does not require a majority. It merely elects whoever gets the most “yes” votes.

Where only the largest party in a district wins a rep, only two big parties thrive. So voters get just two

real candidates; who offer a very limited choice.

A council majority sets policies (dark blue in picture). A small change in one district's popular vote can shift all power, making laws and policies swerve from side to side.

Plurality politics is a war of winner take all.

$ $ $ LAWS $ $ $

Typical Council Elected By Plurality Rule 1900s ↓

1900s: Fair-Share Representation leads to Off-Center Majorities

Proportional Representation (PR) was invented in the late 1800s. It ends some problems caused by plurality rule. Most democracies have adopted PR. It elects several people to represent each large district. It gives a group that earns, say 10% of the votes, 10% of the seats. Thus PR delivers fair shares of representation.

It leads to broad representation of issues and opinions. But usually there is no central party (C in picture); and the two biggest parties normally refuse to work together. So the side with the most seats (blue and black) forms the ruling majority which then enacts — policies skewed toward their side.

$ $ $ LAWS $ $ $

Typical Council Elected By Proportional Representation

2000s ↓

2000s: Ensemble Councils lead to Broad, Centered Majorities

New ensemble councils will elect most reps by Proportional Representation, plus a few by a central rule ( C in picture). Later slides show how a central voting rule picks winners with wide appeal and views near the middle of the voters. Its winners are thus near the middle of a PR council.

So they are the council's powerful swing votes.

Most voters in her wide base of support don't want averaged or centrist policies. They want policies to unite the best ideas from all groups.

LAWS

Ensemble Elected By Central And Proportional Rules

Progress ↓

Democracy Evolves

A “centrist policy” enacts a narrow point of view; it excludes other opinions and needs.
A “one-sided policy” also ignores rival ideas.

A “compromise policy” tries to negotiate rival plans. But contrary plans forced together often work poorly; and so does the average of rival plans.

A “balanced policy” unites compatible ideas from all sides. This process needs advocates for diverse ideas. And more than that, it needs powerful moderators.

A broad balanced majority works to enact broad, balanced policies. These tend to give the greatest chance for happiness to the greatest number of people. Excellent policies are a goal of accurate democracy. Their success is measured by a typical voter's education and income, freedom and safety, health and leisure.

An ensemble is inclusive; yet it is strongly centered and decisive. Voting rules for other tasks can follow this pattern. These will make the organization more popular, stable and quick. They are likely to avoid the one-sided results and tragedies at the top of this and other pages.

Example ↓

A Small Example

Nine Voters

Let's think about an election with nine voters whose opinions range from left to right. The figures in this picture mark the positions of voters on the political left, right or center - as though we asked them,

“If you want high-quality government services and taxes like Norway or Sweden, please stand here. Like Canada? Stand here please. Like the USA? Stand here. Stand over there for Mexico's low taxes and government.”

Nine voters spread out along an issue.

Nine voters

High taxes, great gov. services Low taxes, poor gov. services

Jump to the next slide by clicking the gray link. Plurality ↓

Plurality Election

Three candidates stand for office. A voter likes the one whose political position is nearest. So voters on the left like the candidate on the left.

Ms. K is the candidate nearest four voters. L is nearest two and M is nearest three. Candidates L and M split the voters on the right.

Does anyone win a majority? Yes, No.
Who wins the plurality or largest share? K, L, M.
Who wins the second largest? K, L, M.
Answers: Mouse over a question, but do not click.

A mere plurality gives the winner a weak mandate. That is the authority voters give to winners.

By plurality rule, the one with the most votes wins.

Plurality election

K is nearest four voters. L is nearest two. M is nearest three.

Runoff ↓

Runoff Election

Who wins a runoff between the top two? K, M.

The two who had voted for L now vote for M. Do votes that move count more than others? Yes, No.

This winner has the power of a majority mandate.
Only four “wasted votes” fail to elect anyone. Excess.

Runoffs practically ask, “Which side is stronger?”

(Later, these voters will use a rule that asks, “Where is our center?” And a bigger group will use a rule that asks, “Which trio best represents all the voters?”)

In a runoff, the top two compete one against one.

Runoff election

Candidate M wins the runoff.

Two Dimensions ↓

Politics in Two Issue Dimensions

Voting rules behave the same when opinions do not fit neatly along a line from left to right.

Here a group spreads out on two issue dimensions: left to right plus up and down. On the steps of their school, we asked them a second question.

It was about an issue apart from taxes and services.

“Please take one step up if you want more regulation. Take a step down if you want less regulation. Take more steps for more change.”

Which leaves more wasted votes, plurality or runoff?
Which gives the winner a stronger mandate?

Seventeen voters spread out along two issues.

Voters in 2 Issue Dimensions

Kay wins a plurality.Em wins a runoff.

Chief Executive ↓

Chief Executive

The Goal of Instant Runoff Voting is this:

A majority winner
from a single election.

How does it work? You rank your favorite candidates,
as your first choice, second choice, third and so on.
Then your ballot goes to your first-rank candidate.

If no candidate gets a majority, the one with the fewest
ballots loses. Then there is another round of counting.
Your ballot stays with your favorite if she advances.
It moves to your next choice if your favorite has lost.
This repeats until one candidate gets a majority.

IRV_2 ↓

Some Benefits of Instant Runoff Voting are:

A majority winner from one election, so no winners-without-mandates and no costly runoff elections.
Less negative campaigning, because a candidate must ask a rival's supporters for their second choice votes.
No hurting your first choice by ranking a second, as the second does not count unless the first choice has lost.
No lesser-of-two-evils choice, as you can mark your true first choice without fear of wasting your vote
No spoilers, as votes for minor candidates move to each voter's more popular choices.

IRV_3 ↓

Plurality Voting Patterns

In South Korea's 1987 presidential election, two progressives faced the aide to a military dictator. The progressives got a majority of the votes but split their supporters. So the conservative won under a plurality vote-counting rule. These rules elect whoever gets the most votes; 50% is not required.

The winner claimed a mandate to continue repressive policies. Years later he was convicted of treason in the tragic killing of pro-democracy demonstrators.

With Instant Runoff Voting, ballots for the weaker progressive could have transferred to help elect the stronger one.

The US also has seen major elections in which two candidates on the left split their voters or two on the right split theirs. Sometimes this increased our national tragedies. (Can you name some of these split elections and their tragic results?)

IRV_4 ↓

Instant Runoff Voting Patterns

From five factions to one majority.

Four IRV pie charts

1) Ms. Violet loses. Her ballots go to each voter's next choice.

2) Ms. Blonde loses. Her ballots move.

3) Ms. Green loses.

4) Ms. Carmine loses.

IRV elects leaders in cities large and small: London, Sidney, San Francisco, Burlington, Dublin and others. Students use it at Duke, Harvard, Stanford, Rice, Tufts, MIT, Cal Tech, Carlton, Clark, Cornell, Dartmouth, Hendrix, Reed, UCLA, Vassar, Whitman, William and Mary, The University of: Cal, Il, Md, Mn, Ok, Va, Wa, Wi, and more.

A picture in the transferable vote workshop shows individual ballots moving.

IRV lets you vote for the candidate you really like. And even if that option loses, your vote isn't wasted; it goes to your next choice.

Council ↓

Council Elections

3 Single-Winner Elections

A class of 27 wants to elect a planning committee. Someone says, “Elect a rep from each seminar group.” The top group gives Kay 3 votes and Ray 6 votes.

But bluish majorities win in all 3 sections.
And other voters get no voice on the committee.

Full Representation

A better suggestion says, “Keep the class whole. Change the definition of victory from half of a small seminar to a quarter of the whole class, plus one.”

Now bluish voters win 2 seats, a majority.
And other voters win the third seat.

Full Rep_2 ↓

The principle of Full Representation is this:

Majority rule,
with representation for political minorities,
in proportion to their votes.

That is, 60% of the vote gets you 60% of the seats, not all of them. And 10% of the vote gets you 10% of the seats, not none of them. These are fair shares.

We elect more than one rep from each district.
You vote for more than one; you vote for a list.
Parties offer lists to us, or we each list favorites.
The more votes a list gets, the more reps it elects.

Full Rep_4 ↓

Some Benefits of Proportional Representation:

It gives each major group a fair share of reps.
So it often elects more political minorities.
And it elects up to three times more women.
They tend to help policies match public opinion,
and often raise the quality of health and education.
It gives voters real choices, boosting voter turnout.
It creates more competitive districts and
“effective votes”.
A council of 3 must earn many more votes (¾ versus ½);
so PR can strengthen a council's mandate.

More merits of Proportional Representation...

Full Rep_5 ↓

Fair Shares and Moderates

Chicago now elects no Republicans to the State Congress, even though they win up to a third of its votes. But for over a century Chicago elected reps from both parties. The state used a fair rule to elect three reps in each district. Most districts gave the majority party two reps and the minority party one.

Those Chicago Republicans were usually moderates. So were Democratic reps from Republican strongholds. Even the biggest party in a district tended to elect reps who were more independent. They could work together and make state policies more moderate.

Shares of votes equal fair shares of seats.

Full Rep_6 ↓

Fair-Shares and Moderates 2

New Zealand switched in 1996 from Single-Winner Districts to a blend of SWD and Full Representation. A one-winner district exaggerates local issues and alliances. Full Rep frees voters from district enclosures to elect some reps with thin but widespread appeal.

The number of women elected rose from 21 to 35. The number of native Maoris elected rose from 6 to 15, which is almost proportional to the Maori population. Voters also elected 3 Polynesian reps and 1 Asian rep.

Many people call this Full Representation or Proportional Voting.

(The transferable vote workshop shows one way to get Full Representation.)

Related reforms ↓

Related Election Reforms

Ballot access laws make it hard for minor parties to get nominees on the ballot. The two big parties make those laws largely because they fear spoiler candidates. Better voting rules put that fear to rest.

A news firm may inform us better if votes by subscribers rule it.

Public campaign funding, as in Maine and Arizona, lets reps spend less time with rich donors and more with common voters. (The Ackerman-Ayres plan gives each voter $50 of vouchers to donate. Anonymous giving means no political payback.)

Optical-scan ballots and open-source software check fraud by election workers and corporations.

Sabbatical terms make the current rep run against a former rep returning from sabbatical. Voters get a real choice between two winners. Each has a record of what they did in office. Plurality would tend to make the current and former reps both lose due to a party split. But IRV and Pairwise heal party splits. The sabbatical might pay a rep to do work in her district.

Initiative voters get more choices and power with full-choice ballots and Pairwise tallies. They should set the political rules. But minority rights to ballots, reps and funds need constitutional protection from the majority of the day.

Spending ↓

Funding Choices

Fair Shares to Buy Public Goods

Electing reps is the most obvious use of voting rules. Rules to set policies and budgets are just as important. In fact, they get used more often than election rules. They might be the only votes in a direct democracy.

Proportional Representation distributes the council seats fairly. In the same way, Fair-share Spending allocates money fairly. It is the next logical step.

Democratic rights fulfilled through history:

Voting for rich men, poor men, “colored” men, women.

Full representation for large political minorities.

Fair-share spending by big groups of voters or reps.

$$$$LAWS$$$$

Fair shares give minority voters some power. Spending_2 ↓

Dim Old Budget Rules

The old way to set budgets blurs responsibility. Take deficit spending. Progressives may say too much is spent on big weapons; conservatives often blame the money spent on health and education. Every rep can claim, “I didn't spend too much.”

Protecting the environment is popular with both conservative and progressive voters. Reps don't dare attack it openly. So, to pay off some corporate donors, reps slyly starve agencies that enforce environmental laws. Similar cuts have hit OHSA and the auditors of corporate tax returns.

Spending_3 ↓

Old Roller-Coaster Budget Patterns

“Lower but constant funding is more productive than a roller-coaster budget that might average far more.”

The Texas Super-Conducting Super Collider was a multi-billion dollar project in the 1980s. This effort to build the world's largest cyclotron was supported by a majority in Congress for a few years... then dropped. The only thing built was a “billion-dollar hole in the ground.”

Members might be more cautious about starting vast projects if they could not spend the opposition's share of the budget. And they should have the power to finish their projects with their own share.

Spending_4 ↓

A Pattern of Unfair Spending

Membership groups often shirk competitive elections to avoid conflicts and hurt feelings. But members still compete over money to fund projects.

Often, some members use tricks to capture a lot of the budget. When that injustice is felt, others may grow rebellious, or leave.

They need a rule that makes spending fair.

Many empty hands Fair shares

Many empty hands Fair Shares

Spending_5 ↓

A System of Unfair Spending

The US Congress lets a single rep “earmark” funds for pet projects in her district. In 1994, the four thousand earmarks cost us $23 billion. Ten years later, the fourteen thousand earmarks cost us $45 billion.

Earmarks help some reps give much more money to their districts than most reps do. Each rep votes yes or no to a huge “omnibus” bill. It holds hundreds of earmarks, some good, some bad. The system makes it hard to prove which reps are wasting money.

Spending_6 ↓

Fair-share Spending Works This Way

In a citywide vote, each neighborhood or interest group funds a few school, park or road improvements. The city's taxes then pay for the projects as the School, Park, and Road Departments manage the contracts.

Every neighborhood and interest group controls its share of spending power; no one is shut out. This makes (hidden) empires less profitable.

Many empty hands Fair shares

Many empty hands Fair Shares

Spending_7 ↓

Fair-Shares or Winner Take All

If a plurality spends all the money, the last thing they buy adds little to their happiness. It is a low priority. But that money could buy the high-priority favorite of a large minority; making them happier.

In economic terms: The “social utility” of the money and goods tends to increase if we each allocate a share. Shares spread out opportunities and incentives too.

In political terms: Fair shares earn wide respect, as we are each in some big minority funding a project. And our budget serves and appeals to more people.

Spending_8 ↓

The principle of Fair-share Spending is this:

Spending power for all,
in proportion to their votes.

That is, 60% of the voters spend 60% of the money, not all of it. A project still needs grants from many voters to prove it is a public good worth public money. So we let a voter fund only a fraction of a project.

How does it work? Like IRV: You rank your choices.

Then your money moves to help all the favorites you can afford. And a tally of all ballots drops the least-funded project.
This repeats until all projects still in the race are fully funded.

Spending_9 ↓

Adjusting the Ongoing Budgets

Fair shares can set the budgets of departments too.
Every “line item” starts with most of its past budget.
Voters write-in and rank higher budgets for the items.
A voter's ballot can afford to pay its fair shares for many
of its high ranks. Thus it gives them votes.

Each budget level of an item is like a project:
To win, it needs to receive a set number of votes.
It gets one from each ballot currently paying a full share
of the item's cost up to that level or higher.

One at a time, the weak ones lose and the money moves.
The item that gets the fewest votes for its current top level, loses that level. Each donor's money flows from it to help another choice that needs his vote. This repeats until each item has a top level that wins. Now all the line items are fully paid for by their voters.

Spending_10 ↓

Merits of Fair-shares for Picking Projects

After discussion, one poll quickly sets many budgets.
It reduces agenda effects such as leaving naught for the last items or going into debt for them.
It splits the free-rider or poison-pill items from others.
It lets sub-groups fund projects; it's like federalism,
but without new layers of taxes and bureaucracy.
It funds big groups, whether spread out or local.
Fair shares do not hand minorities too much power.
A majority spends most of any fair-share fund.
It can be small and just cover optional projects.

Spending_11 ↓

More Merits of Shares for Funding Agencies

It smoothes the budget roller coasters that hurt efficiency.
It stops starvation budgets designed to cause failure.
Majorities enact the policies that direct the programs.
They may end any program before the voting starts.
A member can waste only her share of the fund.
Voters can see a rep's grants to each project, tax
cut or debt reduction and hold her accountable.
There are no vague or hidden votes.
Fair-share voting builds trust in group spending,
and may raise support for more of it.

Spending_12 ↓

Notes on Fair-Share Spending

The “in-group” at a college, club, co-op, condo, or
congregation cannot take more than their fair share.
They cannot give the “out groups” less than their shares.
For every minority annexed, the majority loses a fraction of the total budget.
Fair shares help any interest group which is dispersed;
which is not the local plurality.
It aids economic co-operation in ad-hoc groups.
So it can reduce extremes of selfish or centralized spending.
It keeps strong incentives for inventors and investors to increase efficiency.

The transferable vote workshop shows budget-setting math.

Spending_13 ↓

The Principle in Budget Refill Voting was:
Majority rule,
within a balance of forces.

So if we all agree, we can change budgets radically.
But if many disagree, they can moderate the changes.
Yet a minority cannot slow the budget process.

Each agency starts with [80]% of its current budget.*
A rep may refill only a limited share of each budget.
So it takes many reps to refill one, and more to raise it.
You repeatedly adjust your grants, causing and countering budget changes, until a timer stops the voting.

A minority can moderate a budget's change.
But a majority can make it rise or fall.

Policy ↓

* To vote less than about [80]% to basic services, such as
the police or public health, would be “stealing a free ride.”

BRV lets a majority reduce their grants to agency X. This undercuts a minority's grants to X. So, to maintain the total for X, the minority must give it bigger grants. Then the majority reduces theirs, etc. With BRV, nobody apportions the budget as they sincerely want it. In contrast, the previous fair-share rule gave all members positive power to fund favorites.

Policy

Pairwise Test Number Two

The nine-voter Runoff shown above was a one-against-one or “Pairwise” contest between candidates M and K. Five voters preferred M over K.

Here is a second Pairwise test with the same voters

Candidate K loses this one-against-one test.
Candidate L wins by five votes to four.

(Each person votes once with a full-choice ballot. There are several ballot styles.)

K is nearest four voters. L is nearest five voters.

Policy_2 ↓

Pairwise Test Number Three

Candidate L wins her next one-on-one test also. She has won majorities against each of her rivals, so she is the one candidate who best represents all the voters. She is the Pairwise winner.

Could another person top candidate L? Yes,  No.
Hint: Is anyone closer to the political center? Yes,  No.
Who is the Pairwise winner on page 9? K,  L,  M.

Thus Pairwise picks a central chairperson or policy.
Is it likely to elect diverse reps? Yes, No.

L is nearest 6 voters; M is nearest 3.

Policy_3 ↓

The goal of the Pairwise Tally is this:

Majority victories
over every single rival.

Option M beats option K if most voters rank M above K. Each ballot's rank of M compared to K concerns us.
Their numbers of first-rank votes do not.

The winner must beat every rival, one-against-one.

If another rule picks a different winner our “round-robin” tournament, or Condorcet winner ranks higher on most ballots, so she wins a one-against-one majority over that other rule's winner.

Policy_4 ↓

Pairwise Tallies Quickly Pick Balanced Policies

Full-choice ballots rank related motions all at once.
They simplify the rules of order and speed up voting.
They cut down agenda affects including poison-pill
or free-rider amendments.
Balanced policies avoid erratic or excessive changes.
That saves money and builds respect for government.
It reduces the game-of-chance and fear in politics.
And it reduces the payoff from big campaign gifts.
Pairwise can elect a fairly neutral judge or administrator.
It can elect moderators to cast the swing votes on a
centrally-balanced “ensemble council.”

More merits of the Pairwise or “Condorcet” rule...

Policy_5 ↓

Pairwise Popularity and Balance

A policy needs good marks from voters on all sides. That is because every rep can rank it compared to other policies. So all voters are “obtainable” and valuable. This leads to policies with wide appeal. (A plurality or runoff winner gets no help from the losing side and doesn't need to please those voters.)

The Pairwise winner is central and popular: Most centrist and progressive voters like it more than any conservative policy. At the same time, most centrist and conservative voters like it more than any progressive policy. All sides can join to beat narrowly-centrist policies.

Open voting

Everyone helps choose our center.

Policy_6 ↓

A Moderator's Balanced Support

Most progressive voters rank Kennedy [Livingstone, Lafontaine] above Clinton [Blair, Schröder]. So to win a majority over Kennedy, Clinton must outrank him on ballots from centrists and conservatives. She cannot hope to be the first choice for conservative voters; still, she must seek their favor.

Conservative voters rank Bush [Major, Kohl] higher than Clinton. So to win a majority over Bush, Clinton must appeal to centrists and progressives.

Every candidate needs the centrist voters, of course. But every candidate needs the progressives and conservatives too. When compared with Kennedy, Clinton needs those conservative voters. And when compared with Bush, Clinton needs the progressives.

In this Pairwise election of a moderator, a less controversial candidate might top each of these polarizing politicians.

(A later page shows an interactive Pairwise tally table.)

Rigged_Votes_1 ↓

Gerrymander

Candidate M lost the last election by plurality rule. Now let's say her party gerrymanders the borders of her election district. They add neighbors (purple below) who tend to vote for her party; and exclude less favorable voters (the yellow voter missing on the left). So now her party is certain to win the new district.

Reps will tend to come from the party's activist wing.

The old plurality rule is the easiest to manipulate. But the Pairwise winner, L, doesn't change in this case. And Proportional Representation also resists gerrymanders.

Now K has 3 votes. L has two. And M has four.

Rigged_Votes_2 ↓

Bribes

Bribes, big campaign gifts, and jobs for friends can make some reps switch sides on a policy. Pairwise resists corruption well, as bribing a few reps moves the council's middle, and the winning policy, only a little.

“Poison-pill amendments” are designed to make some reps change sides and oppose a bill they had supported. Pairwise lets reps rank the original bill, no bill, and the (poison) amended bill. They may shun the pill.

Fair shares of seats and spending reduce the payoffs to those who bribe the biggest party. It can no longer seize more than its share of reps or money.
Fair shares and visible grants also restrain corruption.

Why Vote ↓

Philosophy

Why Vote

Meetings often make interlocking decisions one at a time. They use a yes-no process, with or without explicit rules of order, agendas, and votes. Items decided early can shut out later options.

Or people may talk about all options at once but never clearly tell (vote) their second and third choices. So a minority pushing a single idea can appear to be the strongest group. And one person with a balanced idea but no eager supporters might drop it.

The best rules avoid all those problems by ranking the competing motions (or budgets) on the same ballot. (A ballot might ask the voter to score each distinct motion. The computer uses her scores to rank the large list of compatible combinations. Then the voter adjusts these ranks for the tally.)

Philo_2 ↓

Why Vote 2

Groups with little time and many issues or many members and conflicting interests, usually follow discussions with voting rather than consensus.

Voting can be anonymous to protect dissidents. It provides equality for busy or unassertive people. Pondering a ballot or survey educates members about setting budgets and priorities.

A straw poll can find the major opinion groups and focus a discussion on the strongest idea from each group or on the most central options.

Some issues allow decisions that are not adversarial or consensual: Multi-winner funding gives everyone a fair share of power. Yet it doesn't let anyone dictate or block action.

Steering Analogy ↓

Steering Analogy

When choosing a voting rule, a new Mercedes costs little more than an old jalopy. That price is a bargain when the votes steer important budgets or policies.

Does your car have an 1890 steering tiller or a new, power steering wheel? Does your organization have an 1890 voting rule or a new, centered and balanced rule?

Today's drivers need the skill to use power steering — but they don't need the math or logic to engineer it. Same with voters and voting rules.

How to start? A group may test drive a new rule in a survey.
Or a “committee of the whole” may vote, tally and report its result to enact by the usual rules.

Tools Between People ↓

Tools Between People

Voting rules affect our laws — and our views on life.
By making us practice either winner-take-all or sharing,
rules change the way we treat each other and see the world.

Thus better voting rules can shift our expectations of voting and government. They can move from tools that inflame culture wars toward tools supporting diversity and its freedom.

Happiness is strongly linked to good relationships. So a good way to increase happiness is to improve tools between people such as group-decision tools.

Exit? ↓

Exit or Power

In the end, a group decision cannot satisfy two people with opposing values about the issue. Migrating or “voting with your feet” is the surest way to get to the policies you want. When you can't do that, avoid willful authoritarians; build democratic institutions with open-minded egalitarians.

Democracy improves in eras such as The Enlightenment. Many people restrained blind faith, obedience and ideology. They worked to expand knowledge through rational, skeptical and empirical thinking.

(There's more on the democratic philosophy page.)

Conclusions ↓

Conclusions

Many people are excited to learn that voting does not have to mean 'winner take all'.

The best voting rules are fast, easy and fair.
They strengthen votes and thus mandates. That means
they organize voters and lift the number supporting:
a Chairperson from a plurality to a majority;
a Council from a plurality to over three quarters;
a Budget from a few power blocs to all members;
a Policy from a one-sided to an over-all majority.

This page shows that different voting tasks
need different kinds of voting rules.

Politics is more principled with
fair shares for seats and money, and
true majorities for executives and policies.

Benefits ↓

Better Election Rules
Benefit Voters and Reps

Give voters real choices of candidates who can win,
by electing fair shares of reps from all big groups.
This supports a wide range of candidates,
debate of issues and turnout of voters.
Reduce wasted votes and so end weak mandates for reps.
Cut the effects of spoilers and gerrymanders.
Reduce the number of districts with safe seats.
Reduce attack ads and anger among voters.
Reduce the payoffs to the big campaign donors.

Benefits_2 ↓

Some Benefits of Legislative Rules

Give fair representation to all major groups.
So the council will enact laws with real majorities.

Elect a central chairperson with wide appeal. She will be
a swing vote between the reps from interest groups.

Reduce deadlocks and upheavals in budgets or policies.
Make shifts in power small, common and smooth.

Cut the chances for agenda scams; detach poison-pill and
free-rider amendments. Speed-rank all options at once.

Give all reps equal funds for projects and agencies.
And let the voters easily see each rep's spending.

Act! ↓

Voting Reforms Open Doors

These reforms open doors for popular changes. e.g.
Data shows Full Rep elects more women than plurality.
And this change leads to better health and education.

The data make it clear: advocates for education, health care, a clean environment and a clean government should all work for better voting rules.

Donors should too. If we are overwhelmed by urgent needs, we neglect the essentials, the structural roots of these problems. We get bad public policies, due to bad representation, due to bad election laws.

Issue campaigns lobby reps every week for years.
This eases one problem, but rarely fixes the source.

Election campaigns cost a lot all at once. If you win control, you can help all issues for two years.

Reform campaigns cost no more than elections.
A win affects the whole council for many years.
Your work keeps giving to a school, club or town.

Costs compared to results from issue campaigns, elections or voting reforms

Actions ↓

Actions

Learn more in this e-book, Accurate Democracy.
Then build support in your school, club or town with
FairVote, The Center for Voting and Democracy.

Steps toward accurate democracy include:
Organize Voters, with Transferable Votes.
Represent Everyone, with Full Representation.
Empower Everyone, with Fair-share Spending.
Center Policies, with Pairwise Winners.

Accurate Democracy.com has simulation games and handouts plus free ballot-entry and tally software.

Printouts ↓

Booklets, Flip Charts, and Slide Shows

Booklet size	Grade	Primer	Workshop	Font	Paper
Pocket B&W	9-12	doc pdf	doc pdf	10	letter a4
Paperback	10 up	doc pdf	doc pdf	10	legal b4
Hardback	12 up	doc pdf	doc pdf	12	letter a4
español	12 up	doc pdf	doc pdf	10	letter a4
Legal	11 up	doc pdf	doc pdf	24	legal b4
Flipchart	11 up	doc pdf	doc pdf	36	legal b4
Slides	11 up	ppt htm	ppt	26	screen
" Outline	11 up	ppt	ppt	32	screen

The B&W pocket primers print well on black-ink printers.
The others are best on color printers.
The booklets are arranged for two-sided printing:
Print half. Reload (restack if needed). Print the rest.
The Legal and Poster sizes are for one-sided printing.
The Power Point slideshows include discussion notes.

Covers printed on heavy card stock are nice for paperback and hardback size booklets. The paperback size includes voting cards.
The primer to translate has plenty of open space on b4 legal paper.
Workshop handouts can print on A4 letter paper (no cuts or folds) with plain columns: doc, pdf; or a more colorful style: doc, pdf.

If you would like more numbers and logic with fewer pictures, Democracy Evolves is again free to browse or print: doc, pdf. It prints in B&W on eight letter-sized A4 pages, no cuts or folds. (The first page has the introduction to this primer; the rest add to it at a college level.)

This is “open source” writing, so edit the slides as you will and add your own slides for other topics. For example, U.S. voters need concise statements of the principles and benefits in non-partisan redistricting, as practiced in Iowa, and public campaign funding, as practiced in Arizona, Maine, or North Carolina.

You may want to skip some topics or change the wording to suit an audience. For legislators you might change “voter” to “rep” or “member” and you would do the opposite for a direct democracy. The latter might omit Instant Runoff Voting but keep Full Representation to select subcommittees.

Thanks to Steve Chessin for writing the original version of the “elevator pitch” for Full Representation. He, Terry Bouricius, and Zo Tobi each wrote quick pitches for Instant Runoff Voting which were the basis for the IRV slide above. Overall editors include Tree Bressen, Cheryl Hogue, John Richardson, and Rob Richie. Many others have contributed ideas and writing.

Navigation: This page showed the need for better voting rules and their merits. The next page, a voting workshop, shows the simple steps in each tally and how they meet their goals.

After that, you may want to read the one-page introduction to each of the six voting tasks. These tell how a task is like and unlike other uses of voting, what it must do, stories of tragedy and success, the best rule's name, its ballot and its main merits.

Accurate Democracy is organized by uses of voting:
elections and legislation, single winner and multi winner.