For the last 16years, I have run Green Party “primaries” in Texas, from the precinct level to the State level, and participated as a voting delegate to the national presidential nominating convention. During those years, we started with IRV (instant runoff voting), and experimented with numerous other methods, mostly for multi-seat elections, and presidential nominations.
In 2008, while working with a mathematician, and state party cochair, Christine Morshedi, we decided to do a side by side ballot with four voting methods, IRV, plurality, Approval, and Range. (By this time we had eliminated STV, Cordecet, and Borda as too complicated to count, and not representative of the will of the group.)
This experiment clearly showed that Range was the superior choice to gaining a candidate that most people were happy with. Approval came in second, followed by IRV and Plurality (the worst of all voting methods). Despite Range’s superior results, most people were sufficiently happy with Approval’s results and it was easier to explain and count.
So we codified it – all our elections are done with Approval Voting in Texas.
Yet still, there was a bigger challenge. The national Green Party has struggled for years to create a delegate apportionment system that is egalitarian given restrictive ballot access laws that prevent participation and the state to state variations in these and party registration rules.
So how do you get a “one Green, one vote” equivalency at the national level given the inequities inherent in the system?
After years of voting research and experimentation, and numerous conversations with election scientists, this is the latest proposal: https://electology.org/blog/primaries-major-party-failure-third-party-opportunity
I served as a resource on this idea manifestation and your feedback is encouraged.