In the comments regarding yesterday's election post, it was stated that my made-up election method was similar to instant runoff voting, and also that my idea made me sound really ignorant. I don't think that it's like instant runoff voting at all. I took a look at an article titled "The Problem with Instant Runoff Voting," and my plan does not appear to have the same fundamental problem as IRV.
The problem with IRV is that, as soon as one of the third-party candidates becomes better than one of the top two, the balance of power shifts to the "wrong" candidate, making it just as bad as a regular election. However, this wouldn't happen with my plan. In my example, there is a new party called the "Perublicans." The Perublicans are a lot like Republicans, so anyone who voted for one would be almost as happy voting for the other; certainly happier than if the Democrats won. Since the Republican and Perublican candidates were so similar, the votes between the two were split pretty evenly. In a normal election, Democrats would then win, even if the Republicans and the Perublicans combined had more votes. In my system, whichever one of those two would win instead of the Democrats, which seems much more fair. Here's how it works:
First off is Perot. He's stubborn and doesn't like the other parties, so he just deletes his votes, so we've got the same numbers as above but with a total of 95. Now Green is the losing party. The Green party candidate likes the Democratic candidate best out of the ones left, so he transfers his votes to the Democrats. That leaves us with this:
Now the losing party is the Republicans. Clearly, the Republicans would want to give their votes to the party most friendly to their interests, the Perublicans. So, then we have:
With just two left, the Democrats have no choice but to either forfeit their votes or give them to the Perublicans. Clearly a Democratic candidate would never vote for the enemy, so we end up with:
Thus, the election pans out in what I feel is the most logical and fair way possible. Instead of the Democrats winning like in the current system of election, which would please 45% of the voters, the Perublicans win, which would please 50% of the voters.
Am I still missing something? I'm not saying that it's bulletproof and that we should all switch today, but I have not yet been convinced that my idea is as retarded as some of you may have me believe.