Declaration of Election-Method Reform Advocates: Executive Summary: This declaration, signed by election-method experts from around the world, publicly denounces the use of plurality voting – also called First Past the Post – in governmental elections. Plurality voting suffers from major flaws, including the risk of vote splitting. To avoid this risk, voters focus on only two dominant candidates and ignore other candidates they prefer.
As replacements for plurality voting, this declaration recommends four significantly fairer election methods: Approval voting, most of the Condorcet methods, Majority Judgment, and Range voting. These methods all replace plurality voting's primitive single-mark ballot with improved ballots that collect more information.
The signers take no agreed-upon position regarding the use of instant-runoff voting (IRV), which is also known as the Alternative Vote. Opinions differ on whether this method’s disadvantages outweigh its advantages.
As a consequence of adopting fairer election methods, this declaration's signers expect many direct benefits in government. They also expect indirect economic and societal benefits, similar to the way the transition from monarchies to plurality-based democracies yielded dramatic long-term and widespread benefits. The signers of this declaration vary in political orientation, and believe the recommended election reforms will be fair to all, without bias that favors or opposes any particular political parties or groups.
The signers urge broader discussion of the flaws of plurality voting and how the supported replacement methods eliminate those flaws. Private organizations can encourage this discussion by adopting one of the supported voting methods.
Most significantly the signers believe that any government that still uses plurality voting in any election should immediately replace that inferior method with one of the declaration-supported election methods.
For more information... http://www.bansinglemarkballots.org/index.html
© Copyright 2011 by the Election-Methods forum at www.electorama.com/em. Permission to print or distribute copies of this declaration (without signatures) is granted on the condition that it is not changed and this full copyright notice is included in every copy.
Please bring up points that were missed, elaborate on issues not fleshed out, add ways to make the idea/bill better, suggest a companion for GREATER Raters to consider. Please check your facts, grammar, syntax, punctuation, credit sources and quotes, and keep it under 500 words unless you absolutely cannot—then never more than 700 words. Please keep your criticism constructive. We will likely not print destructive criticism although a well written partisan rant bringing up new issues in the idea/bill or previous Op-eds may be accepted if it ends on a constructive note—especially if it offers an alternative idea/bill.
Shorter "letters" are encouraged that bring a new facet to the subject. The intent of the Op-eds is to fully cover the issue for the kind reader to consider before rating, and not waste their time with redundancy or the dreaded—"people-screaming-at-one-another-while-wearing-earplugs-syndrome." Think of the idea/bill as the base with the Op-eds stacked on top to form a structurally sound argument. The goal here is to have a GREATER US for the greatest number of citizens/neighbors. We may publish your piece without notice—so please only submit completed articles. We may, also, contact you for a rewrite or edit. We might even offer suggestions. It is our intention to fairly present the views of fiscal conservatives, independents, and social liberals—to find the overlap of whole-hearted support (nonpartisan) plus the commonality of the "I-can-live-with-that" (bipartisan).