Weighted voting, the way I understand it, works by letting the voter assign a value of preference to all of the candidates. Some think that this might bring forth truer democratic results. Someone told me that Cambridge, MA uses this type of system for their local elections. I’ve never looked it up, so I can’t say for certain. But as an example someone like me, using a system of 1 out of 10 would weigh my votes like this. Obama 8, McCain 3, Nader 5 (and I forget the rest of the candidates). I’m still not sure its the best way, but I wonder if voting would work better if refreshed our system in that manner.
After all of that blabbing I realized that what I mean is more commonly refered to as cumulative voting. Sorry, 1-hour didn’t leave me time to look that one up. It’s a stream of concious exersize for me. Its why I like the competition. Anyways, to those who are curious, wikipedia always provides the answers.
To answer other questions, that seemed to be directed at me. The height adjustment was just a reaction to my own concerns that the same voting method should be available to shorter people or those in wheel chairs, etc.
The candidate and referendum info monitor was a reaction to some people inability to find time to “learn up” on the issues. I’m a NPR news junkie, so I get enough. I think all votes are good votes and the more votes a system has the better. But a nice susinct list of bullet points from candidates might help in the decision process. I did wonder if it was unethical or illegal, but again, no time to look it up. Also, had the same concern about it clogging the line. Not the sort of thing the system needs, especially this year!