What should we look for in an Electoral System?

The clearest explanation I have heard for why there are still various electoral systems, in both Professor King's lecture or in the assigned articles, is because people have different preferences in the results of their votes. Certain electoral systems inherently show a preference for one of two attributes: simplicity and accurate representation. I am going to argue that the more important attribute that an electoral system must fulfill is accurate representation. (note: this thesis regards legislative elections, not in presidential systems where only one individual must serve the post).

Simplicity is inconsequential to voting. The process by which voters vote, the ballot, is simple--it is ludicrous to say that we must use an inferior system in order for the populace to know what they are voting for: they do know. Electoral systems are learned, not innate. The voter, when they enter the ballot box, will know what their vote means and how their preference can win. Then simplicity only helps in deciding who wins; however, this does not mean that the process itself has to be "simple." What matters for an election is that the process is agreed upon ahead of time, that there is no change through or after as to what constitutes a victory. If all parties agree to the rules and regulations, then the job is to make sure that those regulations are carried out: that all valid votes are counted, that no impropriety occurs, and that all parties abide by the decision. None of these things are contingent upon the "simplicity" of the system, but instead the agreement before the process starts as to its rules.

Unlike simplicity, accurate representation is an attribute that must be sought and protected. The purpose of the elected government, and the individual legislator especially, is twofold: to put competent people in positions of power so that we believe they will act correctly and truthfully; and to put people in power who share the voter's preferences, who will truly represent the constituency's beliefs. All societies are diverse and have a difference in opinions; whether the size of the society be a state, a district, or a family, each society has a plurality of preferences that MUST be reflected in the government.

In a single-member district, only part of the population is represented in the candidate; only one segment of the population has an official voice in the halls of power: this is unacceptable. Significant sets of preferences in districts should be represented according to their strength in numbers. Voters have a right for their votes to count, and if a large enough number of voters believe in a candidate or party, then those voters should be given some power in the law-making bodies. This does NOT mean that all sets of preferences are equal: it means that significant sets should not be discounted from the process simply because the process allows only one set of preferences to represent the district. That seems simple enough.