1 to 10 Voting

[openingmind]

What do you think it would be like if ballots let people rate their support for a proposition on a scale of 1 to 10?

Would it make any difference?

I'm asking this because, in reality, people often feel split about an issue. They're "for" because of x, y, and z, and feel "against" for p and q.

So what if you got a ballot like this?

Please rate your support for gay marriage, with 1 meaning "I do not support it at all" and 10 meaning "I strongly support it":

1...2...3...4...5...6...7...8...9...10.

Psychologists have noted that people respond differently to questions when they're asked them in different ways.

This way instead of a tally of noes and yeses, the responses would be added together and then averaged. If a simple majority vote, then a 5.1 or higher is all that would be needed to demonstrate public support. If a supermajority were needed, then a 7.5 would constitute support.

I suppose this could be seen as allowing people to waffle, but nothing precludes people from voting 1 or 10 -- which instead of a simple "No" or "Yes" would mean "No!" or "Yes!" So, arguably, it gives a vote more meaning.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Interesting idea. Is a 5 an acceptable vote? I feel 5s should be banned.

 

[openingmind]

Well, whether 5s were allowed or not, final votes of ~5 would still result in some cases (with averaging).

What would be really neat is to have this for candidates! Because then you could respond to both candidates. You might feel confident about them both, but still more confident about one -- and that could reflected directly in your vote. You could 6 for one person and 8 for another.

 

[HumanityBlues]

I like the way you think!

 

[Slimething]

What do you think it would be like if ballots let people rate their support for a proposition on a scale of 1 to 10?...

This way instead of a tally of noes and yeses, the responses would be added together and then averaged. If a simple majority vote, then a 5.1 or higher is all that would be needed to demonstrate public support. If a supermajority were needed, then a 7.5 would constitute support.

There are many different types of voting systems worldwide. The USA uses majority rules and that leaves many groups unrepresented. Fortunately, many of those groups can be described as "The Lunatic Fringe" so most people don't object. Still, it leads to obnoxious radical protests like the teabaggers and truthers. Once you deprive desperate groups of a voice, they normally will gravitate towards violence.

Wiki article.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

It's called Range Voting. I like it, but the tricky part is establishing a quorum.

 

[ddt]

What do you think it would be like if ballots let people rate their support for a proposition on a scale of 1 to 10?

Would it make any difference?

I'm asking this because, in reality, people often feel split about an issue. They're "for" because of x, y, and z, and feel "against" for p and q.

So what if you got a ballot like this?

As Tsusaka already said, it's called range voting. There's a whole website about it.

I haven't thought about how beneficial it would be in voting for propositions. In the end, it's yes or no. Or well, with range voting, you could realistically put a number of alternatives for the same issue to the ballot.

I'd think first of voting for people. Currently, under first-past-the-post, third parties hardly have a chance. See again the 2000 presidential elections: a vote for Nader was, in fact, a vote lost for Gore. With range voting, you could give both a high number.

And range voting has a big advantage over other voting systems: it doesn't suffer from the Voting paradox. That paradox says that for every voting system with a single vote, you can always think of a constellation where not the best man wins.

 

[Soapy Sam]

I kind of like this idea. But just a bit.

 

[Beerina]

What do you think it would be like if ballots let people rate their support for a proposition on a scale of 1 to 10?

Would it make any difference?

I'm asking this because, in reality, people often feel split about an issue. They're "for" because of x, y, and z, and feel "against" for p and q.

It's well known, in the US anyway, that people are more likely to vote no on a ballot than yes. So legislatures have battles about how to phrase the question so their side gets to be "no".

It leads to some odd phrasing. Then they have to add a line at the end that says "voting no means being in favor of this" to clear it up.