All political elections should use range voting. This is like the voting used in ice-skating, where each voter scores each candidate out of 10. The winning candidate is the one with the highest number of votes.

What's wrong with First Past the Post?

First past the post is where each voter gets to cast a vote for one of the candidates. The winning candidate is the one with the most votes. The problem is that if you vote for a small party it's a wasted vote because they don't stand a realistic chance of being elected, and you'd be better off voting tactically for a large party that isn't your first choice but is more likely to get elected. Under range voting you wouldn't have to vote tactically, you could give the small party 10 points, and the big party 7 points, say.

What about the Single Transferable Vote?

This is where the voter puts the candidates in order of preference. Then everyone's first choice is looked at, and the candidate with the fewest votes is knocked out. Then for the people that voted for the knocked out candiate, the second choice is used. The problem occurs when you have two popular candidates with extreme opposite views, and one compromise candidate in the middle. If most people vote for one extreme or the other, but everyone's second choice is the compromise candidate, the compromise candidate gets knocked out. Under range voting the compromise candidate would have a good chance of winning.

See

• Range Voting
• Interview with William Poundstone