Multichoice Elimination Voting
The Only Correct Method of Holding Elections?
by Jon Schultz
What is the best, most democratic way for a group of voters to select one choice out of three?
With all of our knowledge of math and science - and with all that we hear every day about the importance of democracy - you would think we would have the answer to that question. But in fact we do not, with elections being held in different ways and with there being competing movements to implement supposed reforms such as Ranked Choice Voting, Approval Voting and Star Voting.
The voting system issue is extremely important and relevant to the quality of our lives. The voting system which is used for elections not only determines their outcome but very strongly shapes the entire political landscape leading up to Election Day, including what political organizations exist, how many choices are on the ballot, how polling is conducted, which candidates are invited to debates, how the media reports on campaigns and how susceptible elections are to manipulation by well-funded entities which can secretly sponsor or support candidates they don't really want to win, in order to "split the vote."
That is the problem with the "one person, one vote" - "Single-Vote" or "Single-Choice" - system (also known as "First Past the Post") as can easily be seen by the example of an election in which two liberal candidates each receive 33% of the vote and a conservative wins with 34%, even though two-thirds of the voters are liberal (or vice versa, of course).
The problem of vote splitting is well recognized, it is in fact the main reason why political parties exist - so a liberal party, for example, can field one liberal candidate who won't split the liberal vote - and it is also the reason why a runoff is held, after many elections, if no choice received a majority of the votes.
But while a runoff helps somewhat, it doesn't fully solve the problem as can be seen by the following example:
| Liberal |
Centrist |
Conservative |
| 34% |
32% |
34% |
With the Centrist being the natural second preference of both the liberal and conservative voters, he or she would defeat both other candidates - in separate two-way races - by margins approaching two-to-one - but doesn't even qualify for the runoff. That is extremely undemocratic - and note that this same problem also applies to Ranked Choice Voting, which has become quite popular in recent years, with many people thinking it's the best method.
So-called Approval Voting would work better than Ranked Choice Voting, in this example - with Approval Voting simply letting voters select or approve more than one of the choices, with the choice approved by the most voters winning - because many of the liberal and conservative voters (the "B" and "E" voters), who prefer their first choice over their second by less than they prefer their second choice over their third, would be wise to approve both their first choice and the Centrist (and for the "A" and "F" liberal and conservative voters it would be an even bet) so the Centrist would likely easily win.
But Approval Voting is highly flawed, too. Going back to our first example where two liberal candidates are each the first choice of 33% of the voters and a conservative the first choice of 34%, it would only take a few liberal voters approving both liberal candidates in order for one of them to win - but let's change the numbers to 28%, 28% and 44%, so the electorate is now 56% liberal and 44% conservative.
Now it will take 30% (17/56) of the liberal voters to approve both liberal candidates in order for one of them to win - which you would think would be likely - but if one or both liberal candidates were saying "Only vote for me" to the liberal voters, as might likely be the case due to personal ambition or bribery to split the vote, that threshold might not be reached.
Furthermore, Approval Voting doesn't let voters express their preference order - which can be frustrating and cause them not to approve choices it would be in their interest to approve - and its efficiency in selecting the most democratic choice is highly dependent upon the voters having access to accurate information on the views of other voters. In the following example:
| Liberal |
Centrist |
Conservative |
| 74% |
12% |
14% |
the Centrist will win, most of the time, if the voters think all three choices have an equal chance of winning and vote as intelligently as possible (for the same reasons the Centrist would win in the 34-32-34 example) which, again, is extremely undemocratic.
This website is about a method of holding elections I call Multichoice Elimination Voting ("ME Voting") which, after many years of considering the voting system issue, I have come to the strong conclusion is in fact the best, most democratic way - the only one with no fatal flaw - for voters to select not only one choice out of three, but one or more choices (in the case of multi-winner elections) out of three or more. Its implementation would make governments profoundly more democratic, I think you will agree, with far-reaching positive consequences.
ME Voting is a synergistic combination of Approval Voting and Ranked Choice Voting, employing the strengths of each to overcome the weaknesses of each. It gives voters the power to both approve more than one of the choices and to rank them in order of preference so their point of view is more accurately expressed and an instant-runoff process can be used to select the choice which best represent all the voters.
There are different ways the system can be presented, perhaps the simplest way is for the voters to be instructed as follows (talking only about single-winner elections for now):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Instructions for Voting:
1) Rank the choices, or as many as you care to, in order of preference, and
2) Starting with your Number 1 ranking, circle the ranking number of each choice you consider to be an acceptable one, under the circumstances of the election, and wish to approve - without skipping ranking numbers or only the approvals before the skip will be counted. You should approve at least one, but not all, of the choices.
The election will be decided as follows:
If any choice is the first preference of a majority of the voters then that choice wins immediately. If not, then the choice approved by the fewest voters is eliminated from the race, for each ballot on which that choice was the Number 1 ranking all lower-ranked choices, if any, are moved up one ranking and it is again checked to see if any choice is now the Number 1 ranking on a majority of the ballots which still have a Number 1 ranking. If so then that choice is declared the winner, and if not then the same process is repeated until one choice has a majority of the Number 1 rankings and wins.
Note that all voting statistics - i.e. how many voters approved each choice and how many considered each their first preference, second preference, etc. - will be made public after the election and may be used as the basis for post-election benefits, so it is in your interest to express yourself as fully as possible (i.e. by ranking all of the choices, even if you feel sure your first preference will win).
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
The rule against skipping ranking numbers when approving is essential as it ensures ballot consistency and prevents dishonest voting strategies from being a good bet. If the voters are instructed to only circle one ranking number - of the lowest-ranked choice they wish to approve - it doesn't need to be stated, but then it has to be stated that all higher-ranked choices will also be approved.
In either case, the number of voters who approved each choice is then a valid basis for eliminating choices in the instant-runoff process - as opposed to the highly flawed basis for eliminating choices under Ranked Choice Voting - should no choice initially be the Number 1 ranking on a majority of the ballots.
And how should voters vote under the system? Stating one's preference order is easy - and voters should rank at least every choice they think has a chance of winning - but which choice or choices should they approve? That should also be explained to the voters, either on the ballot and/or in a booklet about the system which is mailed to them before the election and also posted online. A formula can be used which incorporates some basic principles.
As stated above they should approve each choice they consider to be an acceptable one under the circumstances of the election, in light of what choices are on the ballot and which ones they think can win (as smart voters always take into consideration, when voting under any system).
So, for example, if there are two liberal candidates running against one conservative candidate in an election - and you are a liberal voter - if you have no idea how the other voters are likely to vote then you should approve both liberals to prevent the liberal vote from being split in the event that some liberal voters don't rank both liberal candidates (otherwise it won't be split, as it would under Approval Voting). But if you know that 90% of the voters in your district are liberal and the conservative has no chance of winning, then you should only approve one of them, the one you prefer over the other - while being sure to rank them 1 and 2 so your Number 1 ranking is transferred to the other if the one you approved is eliminated.
Alternatively, we could say that the voters should approve each choice they are willing to settle for under the circumstances of the election, considering an election to be a meeting of sorts at which the voters arrive at a compromise agreement - with compromise not being something that you should do, as a moral obligation, but something which you do for your own benefit, because you think you will likely get a worse result if you don't.
The system thus embodies the wisdom of compromise - as opposed to the folly of an election being a winner-take-all fight, fostering polarization in society - and could help avert civil wars. It enables you to say, "This is what I want (your rankings and first approval), but under the circumstances I will settle for..." [your subsequent approval(s) if you feel any are warranted]. While that may seem odd at first, considering what we are used to, it's the natural way of holding elections, imo.
For a fuller explanation, including the fatal flaws in other systems, see the article, "Can ME Voting Save the World? on X. It needs some correction but is, I think, a good introduction to the voting system issue.
If you would like to help with this project, write jon at mevoting.com.
ME VOTING GIVES YOU MORE POWER!
Many thanks to Chris Hood for suggesting that the voters should first be instructed to rank, then approve.
Last revised July 18, 2026. If you would like to receive notification of major updates let me know.
Copyright 2026 Jon Schultz
All Rights Reserved
| |