Ranked voting based on geography is used in Australia and other areas. You rank the candidates in your geographical area in order of preference. If your candidate loses terribly, your ballot isn't wasted - instead, it gets counted towards your second-favourite candidate. This allows you to vote for whoever you honestly prefer, with less fear of someone you hate winning as a result.
A method that might be better would be to expand the size of the ridings, allow multiple winners in each riding, and give each winner power equivalent to the number of votes they get.
Let's look at a theoretical riding with 20,000 voters.
Today in Canada:
- Alice campaigns for agricultural subsidies. Alice gets 7,000 votes. Alice gets a job, and gets one vote in Parliament to promote price supports for farmers.
- Bob wants reduced regulation of banks. Bob gets 6,000 votes. Bob loses, and gets zero votes in Parliament.
- Chandra wants more funding for COPD research. Chandra gets 4,000 votes. Chandra loses, and gets zero votes in Parliament.
- Darry wants reduced regulation of the derivatives market. Darryl gets 2000 votes. Darryl loses, and gets zero votes in Parliament.
- Edwina wants more funding for emphysema research. Edwina gets 1000 votes. Edwina loses, and gets zero votes in Parliament.
The government focuses on agriculture. The desires of the financial industry are ignored (for better or for worse), even though there are more voters that consider that a priority. No action is taken on lung diseases.
Now, suppose we triple the size of the riding to 60,000 voters. The three people with the most votes win. People who vote for Edwina indicate on their ballots that they like Chandra as their second choice. People who vote for Darryl indicate they like Bob as their second choice.
- Alice gets 21,000 votes. Alice gets a job, and gets 1.05 votes in Parliament to push for agricultural subsidies.
- Bob gets 18,000 votes, plus Darryl's 6000 votes. Bob gets a job, and gets 1.2 votes in Parliament to change banking laws.
- Chandra gets 12,000 votes, plus Edwina's 3000 votes. Chandra gets a job, and gets 0.75 votes in Parliament for COPD research.
- Darryl gets 6000 votes. Darryl loses, and his votes go to Bob.
- Edwina gets 3000 votes. Edwina loses, and her votes go to Chandra.
This way, voters are more likely to get their preferred candidate into office. Minority groups are more likely to get an elected representative into power, giving them a voice in government and a means of having their needs heard.
A large disadvantage would be the larger ridings would make it harder for people to physically canvass the region, shaking hands and meeting voters. Campaigns would have to be more dependent on the internet and other methods of communication, and would be less personal and intimate than they are today. People would have to travel farther to visit their local constituency office.
An annoyance would be that weird candidates would be more likely to get a voice in government, even if they would have no power. Politics could get more bizzare than today's sedate, polite forum of gentle discourse on the issues.
- Kendra is kind. Kendra gets 59,990 votes. Kendra gets a job, and gets 2.99995 votes in Parliament for kindly deeds.
- Larry wants to replace handshaking with licking ears as the official means of greeting people. Larry gets 5 votes. Larry gets a job, and gets 0.00025 votes in Parliament. Every speech he makes to Parliament gets worldwide publicity for the country - but not in a good way.
- Maude mutilates monkeys. Maude gets 5 votes. Maude gets a job, and gets 0.00025 votes in Parliament to revoke the laws against cruelty to animals.
What else am I missing?