If you’ve ever felt like U.S. presidential elections don’t really reflect the will of the people, you’re not wrong. According to mathematicians and political theorists, the way we vote—through simple plurality—is arguably the worst system available.

Plurality voting means whoever gets the most votes wins. It sounds fair—until you realize it often results in candidates winning despite most voters preferring someone else.

“Mathematically, it’s just plain terrible,” said William S. Zwicker, a mathematician at Union College in New York. “You can elect a minority candidate when there’s clear public opinion in the opposite direction.”

Why Plurality Fails

Here’s a thought experiment: You and eight friends are voting on where to vacation. The options: Jamaica, Bermuda, or skiing in Colorado. Two vote for Jamaica, three for Bermuda, and four for Colorado. Plurality says: pack your snow boots. But five out of nine would prefer a tropical getaway. Under plurality, the true preference of the group is ignored.

Now imagine that on a national scale.

Plurality voting has led to presidents winning without majority support—George W. Bush in 2000, Donald Trump in 2016. Even when electoral math aside, plurality can silence alternative voices, discourage third parties, and punish voter honesty.

Ranked Choice Voting: Better, But Flawed

Ranked choice voting (RCV), also known as instant runoff voting, tries to fix that. Voters rank candidates in order of preference. If no one gets a majority, the lowest-ranked candidate is eliminated, and their voters’ second-choice picks are redistributed. This continues until someone crosses the 50% mark.

It’s used in Maine’s state elections and in cities like San Francisco and New York. It solves vote-splitting problems and gives voters more freedom to support their true favorites without fear of “wasting” their votes.

But critics, like NYU politics professor Steven Brams, point to problems.

“RCV is non-monotonic,” Brams said. “Raising a candidate in your rankings can actually hurt them.” He cites the 2009 mayoral election in Burlington, Vermont, where a majority of voters were unhappy with the ranked choice outcome. The city ultimately ditched RCV and returned to plurality.

Plus, voters may struggle to rank large fields of candidates. “Seventeen Republicans in a primary? Even I couldn’t rank that many,” Brams admits.

Approval Voting: A Simpler, Stronger Alternative

Brams prefers approval voting, where voters check off all candidates they find acceptable. The candidate with the most approvals wins. It’s simple, intuitive, and statistically better at identifying broadly acceptable candidates.

Let’s say your office of seven coworkers is ordering lunch. You can check off every cuisine you’re okay with—say, Thai, Mexican, or barbecue. The option with the most approvals wins. No rankings, no elimination rounds—just a clear, flexible signal of group preference.

Approval voting allows voters to support multiple candidates honestly. You love Bernie Sanders but think he’s unelectable? You can approve him and a more mainstream alternative. It helps third parties, reduces polarization, and almost always avoids the “spoiler effect.”

And yes, the math backs it up.

In a 2010 vote by a group of 22 political scientists, economists, and mathematicians in France, participants ranked approval voting as the best voting system—using approval voting to tally their choice. Instant runoff came in second. Nobody chose plurality.

What’s Holding Us Back?

Despite its flaws, plurality remains the U.S. standard because it’s familiar, simple to administer, and entrenched in both law and political strategy. Parties benefit from a winner-takes-all system. But as public frustration with politics rises, states and cities are increasingly experimenting.

Maine has adopted ranked choice voting. Fargo, North Dakota, uses approval voting in city races. Other jurisdictions are exploring star voting, score voting, and other alternatives designed to better reflect voter intent.

The hardest part isn’t getting voters to understand these systems. It’s getting politicians who benefit from plurality to give up their grip on it.

But if we want elections that produce leaders with actual majority support—not just loud pluralities—it might be time to break out of the elementary school thumb vote mindset and upgrade to something smarter.

In the words of Brams: “It’s not just about who wins. It’s about how fairly we measure what people actually want.”