{"id":2812,"date":"2015-12-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2015-12-03T05:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/terrencemetz.com\/?p=2812"},"modified":"2026-04-21T13:38:13","modified_gmt":"2026-04-21T17:38:13","slug":"voting-sucks","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mgrush.com\/blog\/voting-sucks\/","title":{"rendered":"Voting Sucks Because it Leads to Bigger Numbers but Lower Quality Decisions"},"content":{"rendered":"

Western society, and to an increasing amount, the rest of the world, depends on the voting method of decision-making.<\/h2>\n

Various levels of government including federal, state, and local elections rely on plurality voting, whereby one person equals one vote. While some will argue that a benevolent autocrat provides a fairer form of governance, most democracies rely on a multi-level system for its checks and balances. For example, tripartite arrangements normally allow separate voting for the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Democracies frequently refer to this method as \u201cPlurality Voting.\u201d Experience shows that voting leads to lower-quality decisions and many conclude, voting sucks.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"Why

Voting Results in Winners and Losers<\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/div>\n

There are other methods of voting, to avoid lower-quality\u00a0decisions<\/a>, and arguably none of them are as effective as consensus-based\u00a0decision-making. Note for example . . .<\/span><\/p>\n

Approval Voting<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n

Method<\/em>:\u00a0 Voters are provided one vote for each option they deem acceptable.<\/span><\/p>\n

Examples<\/em>:\u00a0 Numerous not-for-profit organizations use Approval Voting to select their board of directors and officers.<\/span><\/p>\n

Results<\/em>:\u00a0 The approach does little to distinguish between acceptable options and outstanding options. Results have been known to be highly erratic.<\/span><\/p>\n

Borda Count<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n

Method<\/em>:\u00a0 Voters ordinate all options from top to bottom, where more is better.\u00a0 With ten options, the best is assigned a value of ten while the least favorite is assigned a value of one. The highest score wins.<\/span><\/p>\n

Examples<\/em>:\u00a0 The method used by the Associated Press for its college football and basketball rankings.<\/span><\/p>\n

Results<\/em>:\u00a0 The favorite method of promoters for voting, unfortunately, does little to help distinguish the mid-range and lower-tier options. As voters know less or become more ambivalent (e.g., fourth versus fifth), final tallies can become quite skewed.<\/span><\/p>\n

Cumulative Voting<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n

Method<\/em>:\u00a0 Voters are assigned a batch of votes (i.e., units of value). They distribute them across the options as they see fit. With a batch of ten votes, for example, you may assign seven votes to your favorite and three to your second favorite.<\/span><\/p>\n

Examples<\/em>:\u00a0 Texas and Arkansas use this method in some legal jurisdictions along with some corporate board rooms.<\/span><\/p>\n

Results<\/em>:\u00a0 There are bound to be winners and losers\u2014much gaming is involved when, for example, your second favorite is more likely to be the victor, yet each unit assigned to your second choice, reduces the chances of your first choice being selected. Reportedly, many \u201csecond favorites\u201d win with this method (see the Abilene Paradox).<\/span><\/p>\n

Electoral College<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n

Method<\/em>:\u00a0 Winners of the presidential election in each state get all of the pre-assigned electoral votes (equal to the number of seats in Congress), regardless of the margin of victory.<\/span><\/p>\n

Examples<\/em>:\u00a0 Only in America, where most states assign their marginal winners, all of their electoral votes.<\/span><\/p>\n

Results<\/em>:\u00a0 Since it is possible to \u201cwin\u201d the popular vote but \u201close\u201d the election, some have suggested that the Supreme Court of America will rule on its legality.\u00a0 Look at the Gore versus Bush election in 2000.<\/span><\/p>\n

Instant Runoff<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n

Method<\/em>:\u00a0 Voters rank their options and if the top pick does not generate a simple majority (i.e., greater than 50 percent), the option with the fewest votes is dropped, and members vote again until a winner emerges.<\/span><\/p>\n

Examples<\/em>:\u00a0 Jurisdictions worldwide, from Australia to San Francisco rely on this method.<\/span><\/p>\n

Results<\/em>:\u00a0 While arguably a stronger method than simple \u201cPlurality Voting\u201d, mathematical models have shown that sub-optimal (i.e., initially secondary or tertiary options) options rise faster than the primary option and frequently \u201cwin\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n

Our MGRUSH<\/span> alumni have experienced the weakness of voting with the Goethe demonstration during class. Unlike consensus building that yields a win-win result, voting represents bigger numbers, not better decisions. Plus, there is always a loser.<\/span><\/p>\n

______<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n

Lead the Change\u2014One Meeting at a Time<\/b><\/span><\/b><\/span><\/h2>\n

Are you ready to transform how decisions are made, problems are solved, and alignment is built in your organization?<\/span><\/p>\n

True meeting leadership goes beyond setting an agenda.<\/b><\/span> It requires a facilitator who can navigate complexity, balance voices, and drive toward outcomes with clarity and consensus. Our Professional Meeting Leadership Workshop<\/b><\/span><\/a> equips you to do just that\u2014blending human-centric methods<\/b><\/span> with structured analytical tools<\/b><\/span> to foster rigor, inclusivity, and results that stick.<\/span><\/p>\n