I have been intensely studying election methods since late 2004. I am very likely the originator of the term ‘spoiler effect’. I have severe motor dyspraxia, which makes it practically painful to write and type. I studied group theory, set theory, etc, but mostly higher order logic. But I don’t remember much from that these days, and I gravitated to new classical information theory, which naturally brought me into contention with mathematicians and linguistics professors (and even, superficially, physicists, due to their apparent need to rely upon Shannon information theory, and their default consensus conservation of information hypotheses. These, it turns out, are only expressible in terms of new classical information based formulas). When I first began studying election methods, there were only Warren D. Smith, the well-funded ‘IRV’ movement, a few historically distant philosophers, such as Condorcet, plus various college professors, involved. Then there was me. I of course was there to explain why every one else was mistaken.
My first task was to explain why election methods is not fundamentally a mathematical subject.
There is no such thing as ‘dishonest’ voting. When in the voting booth, the voters are always playing a game against the ruling class. The ‘candidates’ are never the true opponents – they are merely ‘contenders’, contending to become elected officials. the real contest is always between the commonalty and the war mongering, sadistic aristocrats. This is why it is crucial to recognize the defensory (or trustee) functions, versus the advocacy functions of elected officials. If you go to deposit money in a bank, would you prefer to trust the banker who opposes all of your ideals, but has a reputation for impeccable honesty, or one who supports all of your cherished notions, but yet has a reputation of being a flagrant fraud and shyster? The answer is obvious.
So I advocate strategic hedge simple score voting, which is where you cast from 1 to 10 votes for each and every candidate (including write-ins). You would give 10 votes for your most trusted candidates, and hedge that with perhaps 8 votes for lesser evil candidates. That way, very little of your electoral leverage is ever sacrificed when you give maximum leverage to your most-trusted ones. Ideally, you would be limited to casting between 6 to 10 votes, so as to simplify hand counted paper ballots, and much more importantly, simplify hand counted tabulation. It is always possible to distinguish the balloting system from the tabulation system. For example, approval voting ballots can be identical to single selection ballots, yet the ballot system is different because the rules for marking the individual ballots are completely different.
You do not have the option to utilize strategic hedge voting with approval voting. So it is always uncertain whether you will be able to defeat the sadistic ruling class players.
Ranked voting is making incredible progress in convincing local shallow thinkers, especially the ‘Green Party’ to adopt it. They seem to think it’s ‘hip’. But in reality, it will only (eventually) lead to the typical two-party lock-in (which often entails fake third parties that are joined at the hip to the two dominant ones). For vassals who are trapped in ‘IRV’/‘RCV’ we can offer ‘simple ranked voting’. They could simply choose it by marking their ballot to favor it – who could deny them that choice? With that, the voters in each election are provided with the option to have the votes tabulated by the simple ranked tabulation method. With this, there are no ‘IRV’/‘RCV’ ‘rounds’ at all. The twenty highest rank-places are assigned simple votes. The highest rank-place gets 100 votes, and down at the 20th rank-place, a candidate gets 80 votes. Then the votes are simply added up, and the one with the most votes wins. This is very simple.
Any election method that allows complicated tabulation methods (such as ‘IRV’/‘RCV’), for any reason, will necessarily allow more opportunities for election managers to manipulate the results by editing the individual ballots. And election managers always work for the sociopathic, warmongering ruling class, almost never for the common people.