Title is a bit misleading, but I hope you’ll be glad you came.
Beauty of 1 coin 1 vote : It’s simple.
Ugliness of 1 coin 1 vote : It’s simplistic.
When you are dealing with complex psychological beings, as we often like to think of ourselves, simple systems give the advantage of flexibility. However, the same systems, (voting Y/N/A on a motion especially), are often too black and white to represent collective human decision making.
This post is not really about the 1 coin 1 vote thing (just getting people feisty), I’m speaking generally.
I’ll give some of the most basic examples of alternatives to voting on a motion, and would love to get opinions about these and others you bring :
Top N Ranking
Instead of Y/N/A the voters submit a ranked list of some, or all of the candidates. A weight could be given to each ranking to determine a winner, or a “podium” that moves to the next round can be pre-decided.
Every voter gets a set amount of points to distribute among candidates. Winner has most points.
Multiple choice (My favorite on this list)
Each voter gets X votes and can vote for several candidates.
This post is not even about the voting part.
Take another important aspect for example - How voting rounds are organized? and How they transition?
Another aspect from real life where the classic system fails -
Motions sometimes fail due to only a small part of them not having achieved consensus. Perhaps we can allow a partial win for a motion in our system for some decision types. Why not?
My point here is not to make a comprehensive list, or name the options. There is plenty of research out there.
My point is to start a discussion about how our voting mechanisms, and meta-mechanisms, can reflect the variety and complexity of opinions they will need to mitigate, and inspire ultimate consensus and a positive vibe.
Ultimately, for it to work well, we should aspire to replicate the ways we see disagreement resolved in the real world, so we can embed that in our governance’s physics. IMHO those look nothing like Binary.