posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 11:36 AM
Let me try to rephrase Puppy's question. We have candidates for president, everyone has their opinion about each one. Only one can hold office though.
What is the best system to determine who takes office? I'm not interested in debating whether negative marks are 'triggering', or whether the ballot
should have pizza scented scratch and sniff options. These things aren't about who actually gets elected.
The best way I can imagine the information being collected, is for each voter to submit their honest approval rating for each candidate. Let's say
they can rate their approval of each candidate (not just the one they see as most important to them) on a discrete scale from -1 to 1. -1 being the
strongest form of contempt, and 1 being the highest form of admiration. If you find the negative marks triggering, we can replace the notation with
anything else that can represent the same information. We now have the best possible information to determine how to best satisfy the voters. Should
we go for the candidate with the highest total score, or the candidate with the most votes above 0? Obviously, some people would 'cheat' giving
exaggerated scores to increase their influence (like, casting a 1 instead of a .7). What is the best way to deal with this issue? Can you demonstrate
that our current system is the best possible solution for this problem and no better system exists?
Or, if you truly believe satisfying the voters should not be the primary purpose of an election, please explain what is more important and why.