Better do it like the old Greeks: they voted twice. Once to get someone into office, and once at the end of the term whether to banish him or not.
this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2025
71 points (96.1% liked)
Ask Lemmy
35398 readers
1186 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Elections would take 10,000 years.
There is a system that does exactly this, everyone puts the candidates in their preferred order, and a computer just does the "rounds".
Probably the best way ever, because you end up with the least disliked choice. IIRC. We closed places at work with a system like this, went very well.
Australian here, this is how our voting system works. My method is literally putting the most repulsive politician last and then working my way up until I get to the least-repulsive.
Politicians dropped from the rounds can nominate another politician of similar views to give their votes to, so eventually the whole thing coalesces into politicians from three or four parties getting elected, but still gives the opportunity for minor parties to become major parties should the standing government of the day really piss people off.
But that's still voting for your preferred candidates. The OPs proposal is like doing tribal council from the Survivor TV show but for our government.
No, you submit an ordered list from most preferred to least preferred. The computer then calculates how the TV show would have ejected them one after another.
Of course, you wouldn't get influenced by the TV show etc.
reality TV style
You have to play the dead grandma card at exactly the right moment.
You don't have to do it iteratively, just count the sum of the "out" votes from a single voting and the one with the least wins.
Still not a good system in my view, though...
Good point. Let's make it more efficient!
Everybody gets one vote and one veto.
You can vote for anyone, even yourself, but if a single person vetos you, you're out.
Add up the votes, remove everybody with vetos, and there you go!
This is how we end up with a dog president and honestly I’m okay with that.
Might work harder to shut down USPS though.
That's pretty much where I'm at anymore.
That’s how instant runoff voting works (assuming you’re still starting with a small list of candidates).
I guess it would lead to politicians being even more sycophantic before elections to not exhibit any possible trait that could be seen as negative.
Not a good system, I think.
I don't trust anyone TOO perfect. Eliminate him!
They already do that.
As others said, the practical interpretation of OP's idea would be that you just vote down all the candidates you don't want to win. Then the least-disliked (read: most moderate and inoffensive) candidate wins. Good. This is what should happen. Government should be moderate and boring. In an ideal world the government would never be in the news because things are going well and nothing of note is happening.
Or just let them compete on an island which gets smaller and smaller until there's just one person standing!
HUNGER GAMES style.
Depending on the voting system, that's basically just a rhetorical reframing.
Soet of like ranked cboice, which Australia uses.
And put them all in the Big Brother house and film them 24/7.
Would you get the least worst candidate? I would try it.
Another scheme is random selection of a citizen, like jury duty. You have professional civil servants but the leader is randomly selected and if the leader is doing badly it triggers a new selection.
Define badly
In the UK we have a public petition that triggers a parliamentary debate when the petition attracts 100k signatories. I believe there are similar systems elsewhere.
Honestly with how much of a reality show the US already is, I'm surprised this hasn't been tried and televised lol
Do we send the candidates off to a desert island to survive for a couple weeks while this is happening?
It's a fun thought experiment. I'm going to cop out and say I just wish my country had more than Republican and Republican Lite to vote for.
Doesn't the US have more than two options?