Multichoice Elimination Voting
The Only Correct Way to Hold 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 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 by now. 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.
This is an extremely important issue. The voting system which is used for elections not only determines which candidates win but very strongly shapes the entire political landscape leading up to Election Day - including what political organizations exist, how many people enter each race, how polling is conducted, which candidates are invited to debates, how the media reports on campaigns, how campaign assistance funds are distributed, and, perhaps most importantly, 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." For all we know such electoral fraud is the rule, rather than the exception, in elections and primaries worldwide.
The Problem of Vote Splitting
The basic problem with the most commonly used voting system - the "Single-Vote," "Single-Choice," "One Man, One Vote" or "First Past the Post" system - is called vote splitting, although coalition splitting might better describe it. The classic example is 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 is well recognized and it is, in fact, the main reason why political parties exist - so a liberal party, for example, can field one liberal candidate who will not split the liberal vote. It is also the reason why a runoff is held, after many elections, if no choice received a majority of the votes.
Using a Runoff
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% |
Here, with the Centrist being the natural second choice 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.
Undemocracy in 2024
Something like the above happened in the last U.S. Presidential election. In the Spring of 2024 a 50-state Zogby poll of over 26,000 people showed independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. defeating both Donald Trump and Joe Biden in separate two-way races - to the amazement of many - but the significance of the poll was downplayed by the media and Kennedy wasn't invited to the debate between Biden and Trump. That resulted in him further being portrayed as a minor candidate and eventually dropping out of the race.
You might be happy about that if you don't like Kennedy, but the question is not whether he was a good candidate, the question is whether use of the Single-Vote system, with or without a runoff, constitutes a fair, democratic election. If a candidate for an office would defeat every other candidate - in separate two-way races - is that not the candidate who should win?
Unfortunately our long-time use of the Single-Vote system has given us the erroneous notion that a candidate has to be the first preference of a large percentage of the voters in order to be the one who best represents them, considered as a whole, but that simply is not true. How many voters consider a candidate to be their second preference, third preference, etc., is also very important, and must be given its proper weight in calculating the winner of an election.
Using a voting system which does not do so not only causes the wrong candidate to win, some of the time (of those who run, as potential vote splitting prevents many from running for office, lest they be branded a "spoiler") but it corrupts the entire electoral process so that we end up with more of a semi-democratic oligarchy than real democracy, as many people are complaining about these days. They hate the "uniparty" or "two-party system" by which they feel they frequently, if not always, have to choose between the "lesser of evils," but few seem to understand how greatly the problem results from the flawed voting system being used.
Ranked Choice Voting
So-called Ranked Choice Voting has been used around the world for quite some time and has become somewhat popular in the U.S. over the last few years. The system is now used in Alaska, Maine and several large cities, with many people believing it is the best method of holding elections. The organization promoting it, Fair Vote, has received over $100 million in donations.
Under Ranked Choice Voting the voters are instructed to rank the choices, or as many as they care to, in order of preference, and if any choice is the first preference of a majority of the voters that choice immediately wins. If not, then the choice ranked Number 1 by the fewest voters is eliminated from the race, and for every 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, that choice wins and if not then the same process is repeated until one choice has a majority of the Number 1 rankings and wins.
It is like holding a series of runoffs with just one choice eliminated each time, but with no need for the voters having to vote more than once.
That improves on just holding one runoff, but note that it produces the same result with regard to our 34-32-34 example election above, where the Centrist - who would defeat both other candidates, in separate two-way races, by margins approaching two-to-one - is eliminated first. The system is highly flawed in that it eliminates candidates solely on the basis of how many voters consider them to be their first preference, in every round of counting, with no regard to how many voters consider them to be their second preference, third preference, etc.
The Politics of Ranked Choice Voting
It seems to me - and this is just my opinion - that a good part of the reason why Ranked Choice Voting has gained ground in the U.S. recently is because, with the rise of the Green Party - and then MAGA taking control of the Republican Party - Democratic Party candidates have been losing more votes to "far left" candidates than Republican Party candidates have been losing to "far right" candidates - especially in the liberal cities - and thus many Democrats have embraced it as under Ranked Choice Voting they generally gain more votes than the Republicans do. And, conversely, most Republican Party strategists currently oppose use of the system.
But that situation could change. For example, if the Republicans move leftward in 2028 and a MAGA party forms to its right - while the Democrats also move leftward so many Green Party members would be comfortable voting for them - then the positions of the parties could reverse, with the Republicans saying, "Actually, Ranked Choice Voting isn't so bad" and the Democrats saying, "Actually, Ranked Choice Voting isn't so hot."
Approval Voting - A Step in the Right Direction
So-called Approval Voting is a relatively recent idea in the academic field of "election science." The system simply allows the voters to approve, or cast a vote for, more than one of the choices, with the choice approved by the most voters winning. That way, in the 33-33-34 example election above, it would only take a few of the liberal voters approving both liberal candidates in order for one of them to win.
It can be argued that isn't fair, for some people to cast two votes while others only cast one - that the voters who approve two choices are exercising more power than the ones who only approve one - but that isn't a valid argument as someone who approves all three candidates would be exercising no power at all. The system simply lets voters express a willingness to accept or settle for more than one of the choices, in light of the political landscape.
The great virtue of the system is that it lessens the incidence of vote splitting, however it too is somewhat flawed and doesn't fully solve the problem, as is explained below. But first a few words about the name.
Nomenclature Can Influence Voting
One thing to understand about Approval Voting is that the name the system was given can lead to confusion with regard to how the voters should be instructed to vote - and then how they actually vote - because the word "approve" has multiple meanings. There is a difference between approving something - which is to give assent or say yes to it, as opposed to saying no - and approving of something, which implies some degree of affection.
So to instruct the voters, "Which choice(s) would you like to approve?" can yield a different result from, "Which choice(s) do you approve of?"
Those are actually two different voting systems - and the better of the two is the first, whereas the organization which has been promoting Approval Voting has sometimes suggested the latter approach be used.
The first is better because the whole virtue of the system is that it allows to you approve one or more choices which you may not approve of at all, but are willing to settle for, under the circumstances of the election, because, in your judgment, if you do not do so then the winner will likely be a candidate who you approve of even less.
That is why I prefer to call the system Multichoice Voting, which simply means you have the freedom, the power, to approve more than one of the choices - and your approving a choice does not necessarily imply that you approve of them. If the voters are asked "Which choice(s) do you approve of?" then some voters may not approve choices it would be in their interest to approve.
If that terminology is used then a qualifier needs to be added, for example, "Which choice(s) do you approve of, under the circumstances of the election?" - with "under the circumstances of the election" meaning in light of what choices are on the ballot and which choices the voter thinks can win. Voters always consider candidate electability when voting, under all voting systems.
I'll continue to call the system Approval Voting, since that's what people are used to, but it should be noted that I mean the better of those two systems, which I think of as Multichoice Voting.
The Dynamics of Approval Voting
Now let's go back to the 34-32-34 example election above, where a runoff and Ranked Choice Voting fail:
| Liberal |
Centrist |
Conservative |
| 34% |
32% |
34% |
Approval voting would likely work well, here, because those liberal and conservative voters who prefer their first choice over their second choice by less than they prefer their second choice over their third (the "B" and "E" voters) would be wise to approve both their first choice and the Centrist - as a defense against their last choice winning - and for the "A" and "F" voters it would be an even bet. So the Centrist would very likely win.
But Approval Voting is highly flawed, too. For one thing its efficiency in selecting the right choice, the one with the greatest overall support, is largely dependent on the voters having knowledge of how the other voters are likely to vote. Consider the following example:
| Liberal |
Centrist |
Conservative |
| 74% |
12% |
14% |
Here 74% of the voters are liberal and the Liberal candidate should easily win, but if the voters think all three choices have an equal chance of winning - and vote as intelligently as possible - then the Centrist will likely win, for the same reasons the Centrist likely wins in the previous example (assuming the voters are equally spread out along the political spectrum).
And if we add an additional Centrist to the field of candidates, then even if a runoff is held (as is done in St. Louis) there is a good chance that only the two Centrist candidates will qualify. The more candidates there are, the less likely it is that the candidate who best represents the voters will make the runoff.
Luckily the voters usually have some knowledge of how the other voters are likely to vote, so I think incidents like the above would be somewhat rare under Approval Voting.
But now let's go back to the 33-33-34 example again - where, under Approval Voting, it would only take a few of the liberal voters approving both liberal candidates in order for one of them to win - and change the numbers to 28%, 28% and 44% so the electorate is now 56% liberal and 44% conservative, with two liberal candidates and one conservative one.
Now it will take 30% (17/56) of the liberal voters approving both liberal candidates in order for one of them to win - which you might think would be likely, but if one or both of the liberal candidates say "Only vote for me" to the liberal voters, due to personal ambition or bribery to split the vote, that threshold could easily not be reached.
And, of course, Approval Voting doesn't allow voters to express their preference order. They have to give an equal vote to choices they may feel very differently about, which can be frustrating and cause them not to approve choices it would be in their interest to approve.
But I don't want to knock Approval Voting too much. Despite its drawbacks I think the system is superior to Ranked Choice Voting, all things considered.
How to Vote Under Approval Voting
So in essense, then, Approval Voting lets the voters divide the choices into two categories, those they consider to be acceptable - under the circumstances of the election - and those they do not, with the choice considered acceptable by the most voters winning.
Which then raises the question of how the voters should vote under the system. Ranking the choices in an election is fairly easy, but if there are, say, ten candidates, how does one decide which one(s) to consider acceptable or approve?
Everyone who writes about the system agrees that if all the choices appear to have an equal chance of winning then the best strategy is to approve each choice you consider to be above average in the group. So you could rate each choice on an arbitrary scale, calculate the average rating, and approve each choice whose rating is above the average.
But as stated above voters usually do have some knowledge as to how the other voters will vote, whether from polling information or the results of past elections, so the voters could use the following formula to decide which choice(s) to approve.
1) If you think there are only two choices in the election with any chance of winning, then approve one of those two choices, the one you prefer over the other, plus every other choice in the race which you prefer over that one, if any.
2) If you think there are more than two choices with a chance of winning, then:
a) Rate those choices on an arbitrary scale of, say, 0-to-10 or 0-to-100;
b) Estimate the odds of each of those choices winning, with the estimates adding up to 100% - so if you think there are three with a chance of winning you might estimate those chances at 60%, 30% and 10%;
c) Multiply the rating of each of those choices by their estimated chance of winning to arrive at a number we could call their "votability score;" and
d) Calculate the average votability score among those choices and approve each of those choices whose score is above the average - plus every other choice in the race, if any, which you prefer to the least preferred choice among those whose votability score is above average and you are approving.
Here's another way of considering the dilemma, using a relatively simple example. If there are four candidates - A, B, C and D - who you prefer in that order, and you think that only B, C and D can possibly win, then you definitely want to approve A and B, and you only want to approve C if you think, based on the information you have, that doing so is more likely to prevent D from winning than it is to cause B to lose to C.
You can't be sure how the other voters will vote, of course, you can only make an educated guess. And the more accurate the information you base your vote on is, of course, the more effective your vote will be in furthering your point of view.
Other Voting Methods
Many other voting methods have also been proposed, a good number of which are discussed in an article I published on X, a link to which is below.
This page is primarily to present the voting system which I call Multichoice Elimination Voting ("ME Voting") in an improved way, with a more detailed discussion of Ranked Choice Voting and Approval Voting because they are the most popular alternatives to the Single-Vote system and because ME Voting is a synergistic combination of the two, employing the strengths of each to overcome the weaknesses of each.
Here Comes the Sun - Multichoice Elimination Voting
I call the voting system which I discovered (I don't claim to be the first), after considering the issue for many years, Multichoice Elimination Voting. I chose that name because: 1) I think Approval Voting would have been better named Multichoice Voting, for reasons I will explain; and 2) an elimination process is used, as with Ranked Choice Voting, if no choice is the first preference of a majority.
ME Voting gives you the freedom, the power, to both approve more than one of the choices and to rank them in order of preference, so your point of view is more accurately expressed and an instant-runoff process can be used to select the choice with the greatest overall support.
The system works for elections in which there are any number of choices, and with a little tweaking it can be used for multi-winner elections as well (we will consider multi-winner elections later).
After you consider the issue, I think you will agree that the implementation of ME Voting would make governments profoundly more democratic, with far-reaching positive consequences.
There are numerous ways ME Voting can be presented and explained, my current preference is as follows.
Dear Voter,
This election is being held using a voting system called Multichoice Elimination Voting ("ME Voting"), which offers several distinct advantages over other methods of voting. Those advantages are explained in the free booklet entitled "Multichoice Elimination Voting," which you should have received in the mail and which is posted online at __________. Copies should also be available at your polling station.
ME Voting allows you to express your point of view in two different ways. You can both rank the choices in order of preference and state which choice or choices you consider to be acceptable, or are willing to settle for, under the circumstances of the election.
Instructions for Voting
First, read everything below so you clearly understand how the system works, then:
1) In the column next to the the choices listed below, rank the choices, or as many as you care to, in order of preference. Use whole numbers, beginning with "1," without ties or gaps.
And:
2) Circle the ranking number of the lowest-ranked choice which you consider to be an acceptable one, under the circumstances of the election (in light of what choices are on the ballot and which ones you think have a chance of winning). That choice - and all higher-ranked ones, if any - will be considered acceptable or approved.
How the Winner Will Be Chosen:
The election will be decided as follows. If any choice is the Number 1 ranking 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, and 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, that choice is declared the winner, and if not, the same process is repeated until one choice has a majority of the Number 1 rankings and wins.
Those are the basic rules of ME Voting, expressed in language which could be simpler - for example, the voters could just be instructed to circle the ranking number of the lowest-ranked choice they wish to approve, without any explanation of what that means - but I think the explanation, which could be worded differently, conveys the basic logic of the system, so people can more easily understand how reasonable it is.
Alternative Presentations
The above format is just one of several possible ones. For example, the voters could be instructed to circle the ranking number of each choice they wish to approve, starting with their Number 1 ranking - but then a rule would need to be stated, that you can't skip ranking numbers or the approvals after the skip won't be counted (for example, if you circle ranking Numbers 1, 2 and 4, only 1 and 2 will be counted). That necessary rule, which is built into the structure of the above presentation, ensures ballot consistency and prevents a dishonest voting strategy from being a good bet (as I will also explain).
Or, you could have a two-column ballot, on which the voters approve in one column and rank in the other - or a three-column ballot on which they approve in one column and the rankings are divided between the choice(s) approved, in a second column, and the one(s) not approved in a third. In either of those cases the above rule would also have to be stated.
A "How to Vote" section, something like as follows, could also be added to the ballot. There should, of course, be a media campaign to educate people about the system before any election is held with it, and the booklet mailed to the voters would contain the information.
How to Vote:
With regard to ranking the choices, you want to rank all of them (or, if there are many choices, at least all which can possibly win) so your Number 1 ranking will be passed down your preference order as candidates are eliminated from the race.
Note that you can rank honestly and don't need to worry that a candidate you don't like will win before your Number 1 ranking is passed to a real contender. If that does happen the candidate who won would have won anyway, even if you had abandoned your real top choice(s) and ranked a real contender Number 1.
Also note that the voting statistics - 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 rank all of the choices, or as many as you can, even if you feel certain that your first choice is going to win.
With regard to which choice(s) you should approve, a formula for deciding is contained in the booklet referenced above. Generally speaking, if you think there are only two choices with a chance of winning then you want to approve one of them, only, plus any choices you ranked higher; and if you think there are more than two choices with a chance of winning, then you want to consider the odds of each choice winning - in accordance with whatever knowledge you have from polls and the results of past elections - and base your decision on that.
For example, if there are four candidates - A, B, C and D - who you prefer in that order, and you believe that only B, C and D can win, then you want to approve A and B, and only approve C if you think doing so is more likely to prevent D from winning than to cause B to lose to C.
You can't be sure how the other voters will vote, of course, you can only make an educated guess. Luckily the instant-runoff procedure will help the candidate with the greatest overall support to win, even if the voters approve too few or too many choices due to inaccurate polling information or any other reason. Just be sure, again, to rank all of the candidates, or at least every one you think can win.
It would be up to the people of every government, of course, to decide how they want their ballots formatted. Different governments could use different presentations, as long as the basic rules above are adhered to.
Whichever presentation is used, the number of voters who approve each choice is then a valid basis for eliminating choices in the instant-runoff process - as opposed to the highly flawed basis used in Ranked Choice Voting, as explained above.
The above proposed presentation of ME Voting doesn't talk to the voters as if they were children, it assumes they are responsible, grown adults who are being entrusted with the sacred privilege of voting because they care about what the government does and how it affects all of our lives. You may say it is too complex, that the voters will not accept it, and if that is the case then we need to simplify the presentation - without changing the rules - to make it as palatable as possible, because I think it is very clear that ME Voting is the only unflawed method of voting which would, as stated above, provide far-reaching positive benefits. Those include:
1. More candidates to choose from.
So, for example, if there are two liberal candidates running against one conservative 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 the liberals, 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 which you should do, as a moral obligation, but something 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 approvals if you feel any are warranted). While that may seem odd at first, considering what we are used to, it is 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.
This website is a work in progress, last revised July 26, 2026. If you would like to receive notification of major updates let me know.
Copyright 2026 Jon Schultz
All Rights Reserved
| |