Primer on Voting Rules底漆投票规则

Agencies and businesses often lose wealth when a council changes hands and changes laws.机构和企业，往往失去的财富时，会易手和改变法律。 These reversals are a major cause of war-like politics.这些逆转是一个类似战争的政治的重要原因。

Old ways of adding up votes fail to represent large groups in many places. 增加票的旧方式，不能代表在许多地方的大集团。 In North Carolina, there were enough African- Americans to fill two election districts.在北卡罗来纳州，有足够的非裔美国人，以填补两个选区。 But they were a minority spread out over eight districts.但他们是少数分布在城八区。 So for over 100 years, they won no voice in Congress.因此，100多年来，他们没有赢得国会中的声音。 As voters, they were silenced.作为选民，他们悄无声息。

Can we end such raging or silent tragedies?我们可以结束这种肆虐或无声的悲剧？ Better tools give real hope ; we can stop the tragedies caused by the old tools.更好的工具，提供了真正的希望 ，我们可以停止旧的工具所造成的悲剧。

We all know how to decide the simplest sort of issue: A question with only two answers must be answered yes or no.我们都知道如何决定的问题的最简单的排序：，必须回答“是”或“否”，只有两个答案的一个问题。 For such an issue, the “yes” and “no” votes are enough.对于这样一个问题，“Yes”和“没有”的票数不够。

But as soon as three candidates run for one office, the situation becomes more complicated.但只要一间办公室的三名候选人运行，情况变得更加复杂。 Then a yes-no vote is no longer suitable.然后，一个是没有投票权已不再适合。

Sometimes what we want is not an election of a solitary official.有时候，我们要的是不是一个孤立的官员选举。 We want to elect a whole council that represents all the voters.我们希望选出一个代表所有选民的全体委员会。 Then we do not need a system of dividing voters into winners and losers.那么我们就需要一个系统划分成赢家和输家的选民。 Instead we need a way of condensing them, in the right proportions, into their chosen leaders.相反，我们需要的凝结，在正确的比例到他们所选择的的领导人，方式。

Where only the largest party in a district wins a rep, only two big parties thrive.如果只在一个地区最大的一方获胜代表，只有两个大党的蓬勃发展。 So the voters get因此，选民得到

It elects several people to represent each large district.选出几个人来代表每个大区。 It gives a group that earns, say 10% of the votes, 10% of the seats.它给出了一个组的收入，说10％的选票，10％的席位。 Thus PR delivers fair shares of seats.因此，公关提供的席位公平股。

A “ compromise policy ” tries to negotiate rival plans. “ 妥协政策 ”，试图以谈判对手的计划。 But contrary plans forced together often work poorly; and so does the average of rival plans.但相反的计划被迫经常在一起工作较差;等竞争对手计划的平均。

A “ balanced policy ” unites compatible ideas from all sides.一个“ 平衡的政策 ”团结来自四面八方的兼容的思想。 This process needs advocates for diverse ideas.这一过程需要多样化的思想主张。 And more than that, it needs powerful moderators.而更重要的是，它需要强大的主持人 。

Ms. K is the candidate nearest four voters.女士K是最近四个选民的候选人。
L is nearest two and M is nearest three. L是最近两个和M是最近三个。
Candidates L and M split the voters on the right.考生L和M分裂选民的权利。

Two voters who supported L now vote for M.现在选民支持大号投票为M。
Do votes that move count more than others? Yes, No. 不要移动数比别人更多的选票吗 ？号

This winner has the power of a majority mandate.这得主多数任务的权力。
Only four “wasted votes” fail to elect anyone.只有四个“浪费选票”不选人。

Here a group spreads out on two issue dimensions: left to right plus up and down.下面一组展开两个问题尺寸：左到右加向上和向下。 On the steps of their school, we asked them a second question.在他们学校的步骤，我们询问他们的第二个问题。 It was about an issue apart from taxes and services.这是一个问题，除了税收和服务。

In some places, people call this Rank Choice Voting, Preference Voting or the Alternative Vote.在一些地方，人们称这个排名选择投票，倾向投票或替代投票。

3 Single-Winner Elections 3单优胜者竞选

But bluish majorities win in all 3 sections. 但蓝色的多数赢得了所有3个部分 。
And other voters get no voice on the committee. 其他选民委员会上没有发言权。

Those Chicago Republicans were usually moderates.这些通常芝加哥共和党温和派。 So were Democratic reps from Republican strongholds.所以民主党代表共和党的据点。 Even the biggest party in a district tended to elect reps who were more independent.即使在一个地区最大的党，往往更加独立的选举代表。 They could work together and make state policies more moderate.他们可以协同工作，使国家政策更加温和。

(The transferable vote workshop shows one way to get PR.) （ 可转移票车间得到公关的一种方式。 ）

Public campaign funding , as in Maine and Arizona, lets reps spend less time with rich sponsors and more with voters. 公共竞选资金 ，在缅因州和亚利桑那州，让代表花更少的时间与丰富的赞助商和更多的选民。 (The Ackerman-Ayres plan gives each voter $50 of vouchers to donate. Anonymous giving means no political payback.) （阿克曼艾尔斯计划给每个选民的50元券捐赠。匿名给意味着没有政治的回报。）

Ballot access laws make it hard for minor parties to get nominees on the ballot. 选票获取的法律，使小党获得选票上提名。 The two big parties make those laws largely because they fear spoiler candidates.的两个大党，使这些法律在很大程度上，因为他们担心扰流候选人。 Better voting rules put that fear to rest.更好的投票规则把恐惧休息。

Optical-scan ballots , post-election audits and open-source software check fraud by election workers and corporations. 光学扫描选票 ， 选举后的选举工作人员和企业的审计和开放源码软件的支票欺诈案。

Proportional Representation distributes the council比例代表制分配理事会
seats fairly .座椅相当 。

Democratic rights fulfilled through history:通过历史履行民主权利 ：
Voting for rich men, poor men, “colored” men, women.富人，穷人的男子，“有色”的男人，妇女投票。
Proportional Representation for large political minorities.大的政治少数民族的比例代表制。
Fair-share spending by big groups of voters or reps.公平份额的支出，由选民或代表的大集团。

The old way to set budgets blurs responsibility.旧的方式设置预算模糊的责任。 Take deficit spending: Progressives may say too much is spent on big weapons and corporate subsidies; conservatives often blame the money spent on health, education and the environment.以赤字开支：进步可以说太多花大武器和企业补贴;保守派常常责怪卫生，教育和环境上花的钱。 Every rep can claim, “I didn't spend too much.”每个代表都可以说，“我没有花太多。”

Protecting the environment is popular with both conservative and progressive voters.保护环境是流行与保守和进步的选民。 Reps don't dare attack it openly. REPS不敢公开攻击它。 So, to pay off some campaign gifts from corporate sponsors, reps slyly starve agencies that enforce environmental laws.因此，为了还清一些企业赞助运动礼品，代表狡猾饿死 ，执行环保法律的机构。 Budget cuts have also starved OSHA and the auditors of corporate tax returns.预算削减也饿死OSHA和企业纳税申报的核数师。

The US Congress lets a single rep “earmark” funds for pet projects in her district. 美国国会允许一个单一的 REP“预留”她区的宠物项目的资金。 In 1994, the 4,000 earmarks cost us $23 billion. 1994年，4000专项拨款230亿美元的成本。 Ten years later, the 14,000 earmarks cost us $45 billion.十年后，14000专项拨款450亿美元的成本。

Earmarks help some reps give much more money to their districts than most reps do.专项拨款帮助一些代表所属地区给予更多的钱比大多数代表。 Each rep votes yes or no to a huge “omnibus” bill.每个代表票“是”或“否”一个巨大的“综合性”法案。 It holds hundreds of earmarks, some good, some bad.它拥有的专项拨款数百，一些好的，一些不好的的。 This voting system makes it hard to prove which reps are wasting money.这个投票系统，使得它很难证明是浪费金钱的代表。

At their best, earmarks let a rep use federal money to fund vital local projects that only locals see the need and chance to do.在最佳状态，专项拨款，让代表使用联邦资金来至关重要，只有当地人看到的需要和机会的地方项目。 But there are better, more responsive and democratic ways to select projects.但也有更好，更灵敏和更民主的方式来选择项目。

Every neighborhood and interest group controls its share of spending power; no one is shut out.每个居委会和利益集团控制其消费能力中所占的份额;没有人拒之门外。 This makes (hidden) empires less profitable.这使得（隐藏）帝国的利润减少。

Each proposal needs support from a substantial group.每个建议都需要从大量组的支持。

• After discussion, one poll quickly sets many budgets.经过讨论，一次次民意调查，迅速 ​​设置许多预算。
  It reduces agenda effects such as leaving naught for它减少了议程 ，如离开化为乌有为影响
  the last items or going into debt for them.最后一个项目或陷入债务。
  It splits the free-rider or poison-pill items from others.它分裂从别人搭便车或毒丸项目。
• It lets sub-groups fund projects; it's like federalism ,它可以让子组基金项目;它像联邦制 ，
  but without new layers of taxes and bureaucracy.但没有税收和官僚主义的新层。
  It funds big groups, whether spread out or local.它的资金大集团，无论摊开还是本地。
• Fair shares do not hand minorities too much power .公平份额不手少数民族的权力太大。
  A majority spends most of any fair-share fund.大多数受访者花费任何公平份额的基金最。
  It can be small and just cover optional projects.它可以是小，刚好盖住可选项目。

Each agency starts with [80]% of its current budget.*每个机构开始[80]其目前的预算％.*
A rep may refill only a limited share of each budget.一个代表可能笔芯只有每个预算有限的份额 。
So it takes many reps to refill one, and more to raise it.因此，它需要许多代表笔芯之一，多提高。
You repeatedly adjust your grants , causing and countering budget changes, until a timer stops the voting. 您反复调整您的补助金，造成和打击预算的变化 ，直到计时器停止投票。

* To vote less than about [80]% to basic services, such as *为了投票少于％有关[80]等基本服务，
the police or public health, would be “stealing a free ride.”警方或公众健康，将“偷搭顺风车。”

BRV lets a majority reduce their grants to agency X. This undercuts a minority's grants to X. So, to maintain the total for X, the minority must give it bigger grants. BRV让多数减少赠款机构十，这削弱了少数人的补助金，以十，因此，要保持X总，少数必须给它更大的补助金。 Then the majority reduces theirs again, and this cycle repeats.然后多数减少他们再次重复这个周期。 With BRV, nobody apportions the budget as they sincerely want it.随着BRV，没有人摊派预算，因为他们真诚地希望。 In contrast, the fair-share rule above gives all large groups positive power to fund their favorites.相比之下，公平分享的规则，让所有的大集团积极力量，以资助他们的最爱。

Here is a second Pairwise test with the same voters.这里是第二个具有相同的选民pairwise测试。

Option J tops option D if most voters rank J above D. Each ballot's rank of J relative to D concerns us.选项​​J上衣选项D，如果大多数选民排名每张选票的上述四J J相剐关注我们的排名。
The numbers of first-rank votes do not.排名第一，票号不。

If another rule picks a different winner our “round-robin tournament,” or Condorcet winner ranks higher on most ballots.如果另一个规则选择不同的赢家“循环赛的比赛，”或孔多塞赢家行列大多数选票。 So it wins a one-against-one majority over that other rule's winner.因此，赢得一个反对一个比大多数其他规则的赢家。

Conservative voters rank Bush [Major, Kohl] higher than Clinton .保守选民的排名布什[主要 ] 比 克林顿，科尔更高。 So to win a majority over Bush , Clinton must appeal to centrists and progressives .因此，赢得了广大超过布什，克林顿必须呼吁 中间派和进步。

Or people may talk about all options at once but never clearly tell (vote) their second and third choices.或谈论所有选项的人可能一次，但从来没有明确地告诉（表决）的第二次和第三次的选择。 So a minority pushing a single idea can appear to be the strongest group.因此，少数人推着一个想法似乎是最强的一组。 And one person with a balanced idea but no eager supporters might drop it.一个人以一种平衡的想法，但没有急于支持者可能回落。

The best rules avoid all those problems by ranking the competing motions (or budgets) on the same ballot. 最好的规则，避免相同的选票上的排名竞争的议案（或预算）的所有这些问题。

Does your car have an 1890 steering tiller or a new , power steering wheel?请问你的车有1890转向舵柄或一个新的 ，动力方向盘？ Does your organization have an 1890 voting rule or a new, centered and balanced rule?您的组织是否有一个1890年投票的规则或一个新的中心和平衡的规则？

Today's drivers need the skill to use power steering —今天的司机需要的技能使用动力转向-
but they don't need the math or logic to engineer it.但他们并不需要工程师的数学或逻辑。 Same with voters and voting rules.选民和投票的规则相同。

A group may test drive a new rule in a survey. A组试驾的一项调查显示，在新规则。
Or they may form a “committee of the whole” to vote, tally and report a result to enact by the old yes-or-no rule.或者，他们可能会形成一个“全体委员会”进行表决，理货，并报告结果由旧的肯定或无规则的制定。

The data make it clear: advocates for education, health care, a clean environment and a clean government should all work for better voting rules. Donors should too.数据清楚： 提倡教育，保健，清洁的环 ​​境和廉洁的政府，都应该更好的投票规则的捐助者。

If we are overwhelmed by urgent needs, we neglect the essentials, the structural roots of these problems.如果我们不堪重负，迫切需要我们忽视的要领，这些问题的结构性根源。 We get bad public policies, due to bad representation, due to bad election laws.我们得到坏的公共政策，由于恶劣的代表性，由于恶劣的选举法例。

Elections选举

• Give voters real choices of candidates who can win, 给选民的候选人，谁就能赢得真正的选择，
  by electing fair shares of reps from all big groups.选举公平共享所有大集团的代表。
• This supports a wide range of candidates ,这支持宽范围的候选人 ，
  debate of issues and turnout of voters .问题的辩论和投票。
• Reduce wasted votes so end weak mandates for reps. 减少 浪费的选票，从而结束薄弱任务为代表。
  Cut the effects of spoilers and gerrymanders .切破坏者和gerrymanders的影响。
  Reduce the number of districts with safe seats .减少的数量与安全座椅 的地区。
• Reduce attack ads and anger among voters .减少攻击广告和选民之间的愤怒。
  Reduce the payoffs to the big campaign sponsors .减少大的运动赞助商的回报。