One of the most critical priority for any democracy is to improve its electoral system and start using a much better voting method.
In a world saturated with information (and misinformation), making informed decisions is more challenging than ever. This is especially true in elections, where voters are often bombarded with a bewildering array of candidates, policies, and promises. What if there was a voting system that not only empowered you to express your preferences but also acknowledged the limits of your knowledge?
At the Pilgrimage for Democracy and Social Justice we believe in building a more informed and engaged electorate. That's why we're excited to introduce Informed Score Voting: a revolutionary voting method that combines the expressiveness of score voting with the practicality of acknowledging what we don't know.
Informed Score Voting builds upon the foundation of Score Voting (also known as Range Voting), a system where voters assign a numerical score to each candidate on the ballot. However, Informed Score Voting adds a crucial element: the "I Don't Know" option.
Here's how it works:
See our article on Score Voting for a more detailed explanation of the basic scoring mechanism.
In Informed Score Voting, the ability to assign negative scores is just as important as the ability to assign positive scores. Here's why:
• Expressing Strong Disapproval: Negative scores allow voters to clearly and forcefully express their disapproval of candidates they believe are unqualified, unethical, or harmful to the community. It sends a strong message that these candidates are not fit for office.
• Creating a Balanced Assessment: A balanced score range (e.g., -5 to +5) encourages voters to evaluate candidates holistically, considering both their strengths and their weaknesses. This leads to a more nuanced and accurate assessment.
• Discouraging Extremism: The threat of negative scores can discourage candidates from adopting extreme or divisive positions that alienate a large segment of the electorate.
• Preventing the "Lesser of Two Evils" Effect: Negative scoring helps voters to differentiate between candidates they genuinely support and those they simply dislike less than the other options. It reduces the temptation to vote strategically for the "lesser of two evils."
• Accountability: It holds candidates accountable for their past actions and statements. Voters can use negative scores to punish candidates who have engaged in unethical or harmful behavior.
The ability to assign negative scores isn't about promoting negativity; it's about empowering voters to express their full range of opinions and hold candidates accountable.
The "I Don't Know" option isn't just a convenient way to abstain from scoring a candidate; it's a game-changer that addresses several critical issues:
• Eliminating Uninformed Opinions: It prevents candidates from being unfairly penalized (or boosted) by voters who are simply guessing or making uninformed decisions.
• Highlighting Systemic Disadvantage: The 'I Don't Know' option isn't simply a reflection of a candidate's failure to build name recognition. It exposes the inherent disadvantage faced by lesser-known or third-party candidates within plurality voting systems. These candidates often struggle to gain media attention and public awareness, regardless of their qualifications or dedication to public service, because the system itself favors established parties and personalities. Informed Score Voting, however, offers a different dynamic. A candidate may begin with a high number of 'I Don't Know' votes, but their campaign efforts can directly translate into positive scores. This creates a compelling narrative: Who are these relatively unknown candidates who are resonating with voters who take the time to learn about them? This, in turn, can attract media scrutiny and public attention, allowing collective intelligence to assess these candidates, identify those driven by a genuine spirit of public service, and break through the barriers of the traditional political landscape.
• Promoting Informed Debate: It encourages voters to seek out information and engage in meaningful discussions about the candidates and their policies.
Informed Score Voting makes it feasible to have a much larger candidate pool than traditional voting systems. Here's why:
• The "I Don't Know" Filter: The "I Don't Know" option prevents voters from being overwhelmed by a long list of unfamiliar names. They can focus on evaluating the candidates they do know something about.
• Equal Opportunity: It gives lesser-known candidates a chance to compete on a level playing field. While they may start with a high number of "I Don't Know" votes, they have the opportunity to win over voters by sharing their message and demonstrating their qualifications.
• Grassroots Movements: It empowers grassroots movements and community activists to run for office without needing to raise vast sums of money or secure endorsements from powerful interest groups.
One of the most exciting aspects of Informed Score Voting is its potential to promote the gradual rise of qualified candidates over multiple election cycles. Here's how it works:
This process ensures that candidates are evaluated based on their qualifications and their ability to connect with voters, rather than just their name recognition or their access to resources.
Informed Score Voting provides a wealth of data that can be used to create a more nuanced and informative media narrative. Here are just a few examples:
• Overall Scores: The overall score for each candidate provides a snapshot of their general popularity.
• Informed Voter Scores: The scores among voters who didn't select "I Don't Know" provide a more accurate picture of a candidate's support among informed voters.
• "I Don't Know" Rates: The percentage of voters who selected "I Don't Know" for each candidate indicates their level of name recognition.
• Trends Over Time: Tracking these metrics over multiple election cycles can reveal interesting trends about how candidates are gaining (or losing) support.
This data can be used to create compelling stories about the candidates, their policies, and their ability to connect with voters. It can also help to hold candidates accountable and promote more informed political discourse.
• Voter Confusion: Some critics may argue that Informed Score Voting is too complex for voters to understand. However, the basic concept – scoring candidates and using "I Don't Know" when appropriate – is actually quite simple. Clear and effective voter education materials can help to address any potential confusion.
• Strategic Voting: As with any voting system, strategic voting is still possible. However, the "I Don't Know" option makes it more difficult to manipulate the system. Voters who simply select "I Don't Know" for all but their favorite candidate will likely see that candidate's score decrease, as they are essentially admitting that they are uninformed about the other candidates.
• Low Scores: Voters who use the "I Don't Know" option are not really voting for the election, and their decision results in the equivalent of a negative vote for those candidates. While this effect exists, as we stated repeatedly, the real-world effect is an incentive for all candidates to seek the most broad appeal possible.
Informed Score Voting represents a bold step towards a more informed and engaged electorate. By empowering voters to express what they do know while acknowledging what they don't, we can create a more accurate, representative, and dynamic democracy. As we continue our Pilgrimage for Democracy and Social Justice, we believe that exploring and implementing innovative solutions like Informed Score Voting is essential for building a brighter future for all.