this is a confused question. biases in a system hurt you in how much decreased satisfaction you feel with the candidates who are elected. you measure the impact of bias by how much it decreases your expected utility from the voting method. you need to understand the underlying science here.
like you could have a system that has zero bias but adds randomness and thus gives you statistically much worse outcomes but without biasing toward the center or extremes and that would hurt you much more. if you prefer that system because it's not biased, you are an irrational fool.
Ahhhhh! My dude you've been telling me this whole time that I misunderstanding you when you've been misunderstanding my core claim this entire time! 🤯
Do you understand the concept of a meta-level preference? Example: I might prefer to have preferences which are fulfillable, or I might prefer to have preferences which are compatible with those held by other people.
Similarly, while of course I have preferences for the outcomes of elections, I also have meta level preferences for the way in which the outcomes of those elections are selected. These metal level preferences are not reducible to object level preferences!
yeah that's just mental illness. like these people you elect are going to determine whether you go to war and how much taxes you pay. and if you think the way your ballot looks or silly superficial aspect of the voting process is significant. compared to that, you are just insane.
like sure, you could pick a voting method because you like the name of it. it just makes you happy. and you can say that preferences are subjective. sure you can like a voting method for whatever reason you want to. you can also be crazy and unpragmatic.
but you said your issue was bias, and that's something we already account for in these measurements. so you were just wrong about that. among all voting methods, approval voting is extremely good in terms of having very low bias
I'm not advocating that you pick stupid values, but rather that there is not a single set of values that is obviously correct. It is a political debate what set of meta-level values we should uphold. (The idea of democracy is one such meta level value by the way.)
it doesn't matter what values you hold. you can like whatever candidates you like or whatever options you're voting on, however much you want to. but we can objectively evaluate a system in terms of how well it aggregates those preferences to select the result that makes the most people the happiest
[this is itself a political claim]
You're stuck in the classic fallacy of confusion between subjective and objective. your preferences are subjective but how to aggregate them can be objectively evaluated.
if your preference is to see the guy win who other people would prefer, that would already be factored into your utility.
to you prefer to have preferences that are fulfillable is just irrational. that is literally mental illness. The point of making decisions is to maximize the expected number of copies of your genes you make. That's literally why you evolved that gray decision-making machine between your ears.
I feel like I need a sign that just says "this is itself a political claim". It's fine that you believe that, but it is not some axiomatically true statement that you can assume other members of your democracy share!
The literal point of democracy is to maximize your expected utility. That's the point of decisions and that's why you evolved that decision-making machine between your ears. and election is just a decision made by more than one person.