The vote itself forms the foundation of our political discourse, and how we vote may be the single most important decision in a representative democracy. In the pursuit of more fair and representative elections, we explore common electoral pathologies like vote-splitting, Favorite Betrayal, and the center-squeeze Spoiler Effect, and discuss criteria and methodology for evaluating voting method quality. We introduce STAR Voting for consideration in place of Plurality and Instant Runoff Voting for governmental elections, and compare it to other leading voting method proposals. To evaluate voting method accuracy and strategy resilience, we present the metrics Voter Satisfaction Efficiency (VSE) and Pivotal Voter Strategic Incentive (PVSI). We find that compared to Plurality Voting, all methods tested substantially reduce the need for voters to consider candidate electability but that STAR Voting, Smith/Minimax, the Condorcet method included, and Approval Top Two go further to ensure an equally weighted vote. We conclude that STAR Voting in particular offers a viable, competitive, and compelling proposal for more representative elections.

投票本身构成了我们政治话语的基础，而我们如何投票可能是代议制民主中最重要的决定。为了追求更公平和更具代表性的选举，我们探讨了常见的选举病态，如分裂选票、偏爱背叛和中央挤压剧透效应，并讨论了评估投票方法质量的标准和方法。我们引入 STAR 投票以替代政府选举的复数投票和即时径流投票，并将其与其他领先的投票方法提案进行比较。为了评估投票方法的准确性和策略弹性，我们提出了选民满意度效率 (VSE) 和关键选民战略激励 (PVSI) 指标。我们发现，与复数投票相比，所有测试的方法都大大减少了选民考虑候选人可选举性的需要，但 STAR 投票、Smith/Minimax、包括 Condorcet 方法和 Approval Top Two 更进一步，以确保同等权重的投票。我们的结论是，STAR 投票特别为更具代表性的选举提供了一个可行的、有竞争力的和令人信服的提案。