Regardless, I still support the idea of a non-traditional voting system. I've mentioned it here before, but my favorite is approval voting. You can cast votes for as many candidates as you want (zero or one vote per candidate), and all those votes count equally. You can vote for Arnold and McClintock. You can vote for Nader and Gore. You don't get to express your rankings among your choices, but you do get rid of the incentive to vote "strategically" rather than for your true preferences.

I disagree with that last statement. Suppose there are three candidates A, B, and C where I love A, am OK with B, and hate C. Clearly I would vote for A and not for C. But my decision on B depends on whether I think C has any chance of winning and on whether I think A has any chance of winning. For example, if the polls are showing 20/40/40, I will vote for B. If the polls are showing 40/40/20, I won't. If the polls are 33/33/33 then I have to decide whether I love A more or less than I fear C. That seems a lot like strategic voting to me.

--John