Reply #2: Well, one of the issues with our way of voting is that we only get one vote. [View All]

Which is fine if there are only two candidates. With more than that, it would be nice to be able to cast several votes, so that you don't have to worry about whether your first choice is really "electable." The Newsweek article mentions approval voting, which could be interesting (just indicate which candidates you "approve" of, and whoever gets the most approval votes wins).

Another approach is to have voters rank the candidates. So if you really like Nader more than Gore, you can make Nader your first choice and Gore your second choice. If Nader doesn't have a chance to win, then at least you got to vote for him, and you didn't "waste your vote" since you have Gore ranked above Bush. Where things become interesting--mathematically speaking--is how do you decide the winner based on the rankings? There are several perfectly legitimate sounding approaches (Instant Runoff Voting gets mentioned here at DU a lot), but different approaches could give different results. (One method might result in Gore winning, another might give Bush the win.) So which method is the best?

Therein lies the fun.

But, as you say, mathematical theory really can't complete with the SCOTUS.

Next week's lecture: the mathematics of Apportionment.