Brexit, democratic multiple choice, and Instant-Runoff Voting

Brexit has highlighted a fundamental flaw in democracy. How do you choose between three or more choices, none of which has an absolute majority? In British Parliamentary terms, there are just two voting lobbies, ayes and nos, but at least three different significantly different views on Brexit.

Traditionally the way a parliament operates is that the status quo is preserved by default until there is a majority voting to change it. The unique thing about Brexit was that there was a referendum to leave the EU and the UK has already given notice to leave the EU. So the default is not the status quo - the default is a no-deal Brexit. Which is a result that almost no one wants.

There are at least three scenarios. No Brexit (remain), a Soft Brexit where the UK leaves the EU but remains in the EU's customs union (Norway/Switzerland style), and a Hard Brexit leaving the EU and leaving the European single market and customs union. There are many variations to make it even more complicated, but at the core there are three scenarios none of which can command a majority.

And the current default (on October 31, 2019, unless there is another extension) is the least popular option, a Hard Brexit. So we have no majority in Parliament for Remain, no majority for a Soft Brexit and certainly no majority for what will happen by default, a Hard Brexit.

Any parliament/congress can resolve a dilemma with a simple vote. But how does a parliament resolve a trilemma? (Yes, that's a word apparently.)

One idea would be using scoring. We ask all parliamentarians to rank the options with a score which totals 100 points say e.g. someone who likes a soft Brexit, and can live with Remain may score Soft Brexit 70 points, Remain 30 points, Hard Brexit 0.  We then choose the option which receives the most points over all.

However Brexiteers would worry that by splitting their points between Soft Brexit and Hard Brexit, they would give Remain an unfair advantage. Similarly those wanting to remain in the single market would worry that by splitting their vote between Remain and Soft Brexit they give Hard Brexit and unfair chance.

Probably what the British Parliament needs in this case is Instant-Runoff Voting. There is a lot of theory showing that no voting system is perfect, but instant-runoff is easy to understand and probably the most practical way to resolve the current stalemate.

Members of Parliament would vote for the options of Remain, Soft Brexit or Hard Brexit giving both their first and second choice. (Or there could be even more options which each MP would rank). A likely result is that Hard Brexit would come in the last place and would be eliminated. But all those who voted for Hard Brexit would still be in the game; their vote would automatically convert to their next choice which would presumably be a Soft Brexit. At this point Soft Brexit would win and so the common sense compromise would prevail.

It's amazing that in centuries of democracy, and in three years of Brexit chaos, a simple system like this has not been adopted to resolve the tragic-comic stalemate that is Brexit.