VOTING ERRORS MAR ELECTIONS

SEVERAL EFFECTS CAUSE PROBLEMS THAT MAR OUR ELECTIONS

The Plurality Voting System (vote for only one) is a defective method of collecting votes in an election that biases the outcome on certain properties of the candidates. This is the evidence that shows the bias of this system and why it should be abolished.

BEHAVIORS OF THE PLURALITY VOTING SYSTEM:

  1. The Plurality Voting System unfairly favors the candidate who is most different than the others.
     - The other candidates steal votes from each other through their similarities.
  2. In the Plurality Voting System, the voter is not allowed to prefer more than one of the candidates.
     - The voter is required to choose one (and only one) candidate to vote for.
  3. In the Plurality Voting System, the voter is not allowed to dislike all of the candidates.
     - When the voter does not vote for any candidate in a race, that voter loses his vote in that race.
  4. Candidates who are very similar to each other attract the same Plurality System voters.
     - Those voters then have to choose which one to vote for, reducing the number of votes each candidate gets.
Plurality pie chart

Plurality Voting Pie Chart
 

AN EXAMPLE OF PLURALITY VOTING ERROR:

The example setting:

  1. This is in a town of 100,000 people.
  2. 40,000 of them support a new zoning ordinance. 60,000 oppose it.
  3. Three candidates are running for mayor: A, B, and C.
  4. Candidate C supports the new zoning ordinance. A and B do not.

The election (using the Plurality Voting System):

  1. Because candidates A and B are similar candidates, voters had to choose which to vote for.
  2. The election results: A: 30045, B: 29955, C: 40000.
  3. C wins the election and becomes mayor.
  4. The mayor implements the new zoning ordinance.
  5. The will of the public is thwarted. 60 percent of them are unhappy.

The outcome does not match public opinion.

A pie chart in the face!

THIS IS ONE WAY PEOPLE DON'T TRUST ELECTIONS.

BEHAVIORS OF OTHER VOTING ERRORS

BEHAVIORS OF THE INDEPENDENT VOTING SYSTEM:

  1. The Independent Voting System fairly treats all candidates equally.
     - No candidates steal votes from each other.
  2. In the Independent Voting System, the voter is allowed to prefer more than one of the candidates.
     - The voter votes on each candidate separately.
  3. In the Independent Voting System, the voter is allowed to dislike all of the candidates.
     - No matter how the voter votes for and against candidates, the vote counts.
  4. Candidates who are very similar to each other attract the same Independent System voters.
     - Those voters can vote for either or both candidates.
Independent bar chart

Independent Voting Bar Chart
 

AN EXAMPLE OF INDEPENDENT VOTING:

The example setting:

  1. This is the same town of 100,000 people.
  2. 40,000 of them support a new zoning ordinance. 60,000 oppose it.
  3. Three candidates are running for mayor: A, B, and C.
  4. Candidate C supports the new zoning ordinance. A and B do not.

The election (using the Independent Voting System):

  1. Candidates A and B are similar candidates. But Independent Voting lets you vote all candidates.
  2. The Independent score is that candidate's YES votes minus his NO votes.
  3. The election results:
    A: Yes = 60000, No = 38051, Score = 21949
    B: Yes = 60000, No = 39128, Score = 20872
    C: Yes = 40000, No = 59901, Score =-19901
  4. A wins the election and becomes mayor.
  5. The mayor rejects the new zoning ordinance.
  6. The will of the public is upheld. 60 percent of them are happy.

The outcome matches public opinion.

THIS WAY PEOPLE CAN TRUST ELECTIONS.

Here is the evidence of the influence the Plurality Voting System has over the election process. Notice how often the effects of the candidate most different from the others and the effects of similar candidates on each other occur.

YEARDEMOCRATREPUBLICANTHIRD PARTYWINNER PLURALITY VOTING EFFECT
2020Biden Trump Jorgensen Biden Biden most different from the others
2016H Clinton Trump Johnson Trump Trump most different from the others
2012Obama M Romney Johnson Obama Obama most different from the others
2008Obama McCain Nader Obama Obama most different from the others
2004Kerry GW Bush Nader GW Bush Bush most different from the others
2000Gore GW Bush Nader GW Bush Gore and Nader split the vote
1996B Clinton Dole Perot B Clinton Dole and Perot split the vote
1992B Clinton GHW Bush Perot B Clinton Bush and Perot split the vote
1988Dukakis GHW Bush Paul GHW Bush No plurality voting effects
1984Mondale Reagan Bergland Reagan No plurality voting effects
1980J Carter Reagan Anderson Reagan Carter and Anderson split the vote
1976J Carter Ford Reagan J Carter Carter most different from the others
1972McGovern Nixon Schmitz Nixon No plurality voting effects
1968Humphrey Nixon Wallace Nixon Humphrey and Wallace split southern vote
1964L Johnson Goldwater Hass L Johnson No plurality voting effects
1960Kennedy Nixon Byrd Kennedy Kennedy most different from the others

BEHAVIORS OF OTHER VOTING ERRORS

BEHAVIORS OF THE RANKING CHOICE VOTING SYSTEM:

  1. The Ranked Choice Voting System requires you to give an order of preference of the candidate.
     It has no way of knowing where you stop liking candidates and start disliking them.
  2. In the Ranked Choice System, the voter is not allowed to like or dislike two candidates equally.
     - They could end up electing one of the dislikes by disliking it less than another candidate.
  3. If Ranked Choice choices do not pile up on one candidate, the Plurality Voting error still happens.
     - The Ranked Choice Voting System can unfairly favor the candidate who is most different than the others.
     - The other candidates steal votes from each other through their similarities.
  4. In the Ranked Choice Voting System, the voter is not allowed to dislike all of the candidates.
     - When the voter does not vote for any candidate in a race, that voter loses his vote in that race.
Ranked Choice chart

Ranked Choice Pie Chart
 

AN EXAMPLE OF RANKED CHOICE VOTING ERROR:

The example setting:

  1. This is in a town of 100,000 people.
  2. 40,000 of them support a new zoning ordinance. 60,000 oppose it.
  3. Three candidates are running for mayor: A, B, and C.
  4. Candidate C supports the new zoning ordinance. A and B do not.
  5. Some of the B voters do not like A,

The election (using the Ranked Choice Voting System):

  1. Because candidates A and B are similar, voters had to choose which to vote for as first.
  2. The vote (1st, 2nd, 3rd choices):
    A1 B2 C3: 30000
    A1 C2 B3:  2000
    B1 A2 C3: 17000
    B1 C2 A3: 11000
    C1 A2 B3: 20000
    C1 B2 A3: 20000
    First Choice results: A: 32000, B: 28000, C: 40000.
    B is eliminated as having the fewest first choice votes.
    The B second place votes are: A: 17000, C: 11000.
    The total election results: B: 0, A: 49000, C: 51000.
  3. C wins the election and becomes mayor.
  4. The mayor implements the new zoning ordinance.
  5. The will of the public is thwarted. 60 percent of them are unhappy.

The outcome does not match public opinion.

Another pie chart in the face!

THIS IS ANOTHER WAY PEOPLE DON'T TRUST ELECTIONS.

BEHAVIORS OF THOSE WHO DESTROY BALLOTS:

  1. This way to cheat can occur no matter which voting system is used.
     - Election officials destroy mail-in ballots before they can be counted.
  2. This way to cheat is practically undetectable without these special protections:
     - The ballots must be photographed and serialized as they come in.
     - The ballots must be under continuous surveillance.
     - Pollwatchers must be able to see what pollworkers are doing with ballots at all times.
     - One pollwatcher from each party must count the ballots. Any discrepancy in the counts must be investigated.
     - After counting, the ballots must be compared with the photos and serial numbers. Any discrepancy must be investigated.
Independent bar chart

How the People Voted
 

Independent bar chart

How Ballots were Counted
 

AN EXAMPLE OF BALLOT DESTRUCTION ERROR:

The example setting:

  1. This is the same town of 100,000 people.
  2. 40,000 of them support a new zoning ordinance. 60,000 oppose it.
  3. Three candidates are running for mayor: A, B, and C.
  4. Candidate C supports the new zoning ordinance. A and B do not.

The election (using the Independent Voting System):

  1. Candidates A and B are similar candidates. But Independent Voting lets you vote all candidates.
  2. The election results as the people voted (upper right):
    A: Yes = 60000, No = 38051, Score = 21949
    B: Yes = 60000, No = 39128, Score = 20872
    C: Yes = 40000, No = 59901, Score −19901
  3. But pollworkers who want the zoning ordinance band together to change the outcome.
    They destroy 21000 ballots that were for both Candidates A and B at many polling places.
  4. The election results after the cheating (lower right):
    A: Yes = 39000, No = 38051, Score =   949
    B: Yes = 39000, No = 39128, Score =  −128
    C: Yes = 40000, No = 38901, Score =  1099
  5. C wins the election and becomes mayor.
  6. The mayor implements the new zoning ordinance.
  7. The will of the public is thwarted. 60 percent of them are unhappy.

The outcome does not match public opinion.

A twisted histogram in the face!

THIS WAY, THE PEOPLE REALLY CAN'T TRUST ELECTIONS.