«Everyone agrees that there's no such thing as
a perfect voting system, but voters have a choice between just two options on May 5th.
People often say «It's been mathematically proven that
no perfect voting system is possible» and cite Arrow's Impossibility Theorem, but Arrow's theorem specifically only applies to ranked / preferential systems.
Not exact matches
In short, we shouldn't worry too much about whether or not a
voting system is
perfect; picking one that's pretty good would be a vast improvement over the current situation in most elections
In real - world elections, there are some
systems where is is much harder to
vote tactically than others - you never have
perfect information on everyone else's
vote, so the more information that you need to be able to
vote tactically, the less likely people are to do so.
So, this is not
perfect, but it seems to have some merits which should be considered closely in future ideas on electoral and
voting systems.
Mr Brown said there was no «
perfect»
voting system but he had chosen to back AV, rather than a more «proportionate»
system, because he believed MPs should retain their constituency link.
While all electoral
systems have flaws and none can offer a «
perfect» solution, having a higher number of political parties allows for wider representation of the community's views and could mean more voters feel that their
vote counts, which may help engage younger voters.
No
voting system is
perfect.
The co-sponsor of a 2017 law that gave NSF a
vote of confidence, Peters acknowledged that no
system is
perfect, but suggested that his colleagues were missing the bigger picture.
On the one hand, in an electoral
system it makes
perfect sense for voters to promote and
vote for benchers based on those benchers» positions on issues that affect their personal interests.
As you can see, ICC picked the least busy year in its three - year code cycle to implement, test and
perfect its remote
voting systems and protocol.