In high school, I spent a little time thinking about voting systems because of the obvious disadvantages of plurality, the voting system we use for everything in the states. After a bit of thought, I came up with what I called ranked voting. In this system, a person ranks the candidates. The votes are tallied using the top choice of each, then the candidate with the least votes is eliminated. For any voter whose top choice was this candidate, we now count the second highest choice. Many people think this sounds like a lot of effort, but if you think about which votes actually have to be recounted, it's not that many.
Of course, other people have thought about this, both earlier and more extensively than I did. The system I had come with is equivalent to what's called Instant Runoff. Some other useful systems of voting are Approval, in which a person can vote for as many candidates as wanted, and Borda, another way of counting ranked lists.
I was going to write a introduction to all of this, but I found a really nice one by
Erica Klarreich in Science News.
Check it out.Oh, the comments, though! So many irrelevant things! If you have a question about it, ask in the comments, and I'll try to clarify it.
While there is no perfect voting system (not an opinion, by the way - Arrow's Theorem is the proof), I favor Instant Runoff. It works pretty well, and, while it's not a simple as Approval, it's pretty straightforward, and all an individual has to do is rank candidates. It also has the advantage that with this data, it's possible to apply more complicated ways of counting the votes that might more directly represent what the people want, when people get more mathematically sophisticated and comfortable with systems that aren't plurality.
On the other hand, I'd support any reasonable voting system that replaces plurality, definitely including Approval. People who say plurality has worked well enough obviously aren't paying attention. There are scores of examples, just in recent American politics: Bush/Clinton/Perot (was Perot a spoiler for Bush?), Gore/Bush/Nader (how 'bout Nader for Gore?), the domination of the California legislature by Democrats (because presumedly Republicans aren't the opposition a lot of Californians are looking for), and don't forget that our national legislature is almost entirely composed of two parties. Changing voting systems is better for democracy, better for everyone except people who want a two party system, for some reason.
People will also argue that instant runoff or approval are "too complicated". These people are crazy. If you want to score debate points, mention that they're arguing Americans (or whoever's doing the voting) are not as smart as Australians or the Irish, both of whom have successfully used instant runoff. Again, all a person has to do is put the candidates in order by preference.
Instant runoff tends to run into problems when the voting pattern is cyclic, that is: close to evenly divided between ABC, BCA, and CAB. (ABC means these people prefer A over B and B over C.) Since political views sometimes depend on shared worldviews, this is fairly unlikely, and the problems are still far less than the very common problems with plurality. Approval doesn't have this problem, but gives less optimal results (in terms of representing what people want) in more common situations.
A (very) secondary advantage to these systems is that they tend to draw people together over politics, making them focus on their similarities as well as their differences. Hey, maybe I'm not a big fan of the Republicans in general, but maybe I'd rather have them than an actual Nazi.
Obviously, this isn't the answer to all of our societal problems, but it is a step in the right direction - that is, toward more democracy, not less. It's really hard to reasonably argue for plurality - you'd be on firmer ground arguing for enlightened dictatorship.
To support instant runoff voting, take a look at
FairVote.