The "republic" is simply ruled by judges who may, for example, throw gays a bone for show now and then, but really only watch out for the rights of the people who matter -- the rich, of course.
Democracy means knowingness and good will of the PEOPLE. Not the republicist rapaciousness of the judges.
Teach the people! Trust The People! We are not the"mob"! The rich Great Gamers are the real mob. You have to know the truth and seek the truth and the truth will set you free.
There are two entirely different kinds of elections, and kinds of "contestants". An election of the president of a science fiction novel forum is not at all the same thing as an election of a United States President. The former is really a contest between two (or more) individual candidates (and their agendas), but the latter is actually a contest between the weak and the mighty — the well-supported candidates of a very few elites versus the grass-roots candidates of the vast multitude of non-elite people.
Simple score voting can be completely described in one short simple sentence: Give no vote at all, or from one to ten votes to any number of candidates you wish (up to some reasonable limit, say 20 candidates), and then simply add all the votes up.
It can be completely machine-free! If machines make tallying X time easier, they make coordinated rigging X times easier. Which can we truly afford???
One could say that simple score eliminates 90% of the spoiler effect. To illustrate: if a voter gives 10 votes to Nader and 9 votes to Gore, it is simply obvious that, if Nader does not win, the voter has only sacrificed exactly 10% of their voting power. Not 100% as they would have had they been forced to use the usual single-selection ("faux plurality") voting method.
No fancy math is necessary to compare and contrast it to every other option for effectiveness and simplicity, including single-selection (aka "plurality," our present "system") Condorcet, Borda, IRV, Range (with its tricky "averages"), Approval (which is not adequately discriminative), etc.
The simple score method I advocate is the very simplest, since it only allows from 1 to 10 votes to be given, not from 0 to 9, or 0 to 10. That is simply another complication. It also has no vote-averaging that seriously complicates the "range" score method. I also seem t be the only one to point out that voters should always vote artfully (aka strategically), not artlessly or heroically (aka "honestly" or "sincerely").
(Simple score is not like approval voting at all -- it is vastly more discriminative.)
PLEASE NOTE: score voting has never been used when there were truly high stakes for the voters. The single-selection method has always been utilized to spoiler effect enforced two-party or two-candidate choices. And would three money-empowered choices be better? Did Greece and Spain with their parliamentary schemes fare well with their "systems"?
And the people MUST vote strategically -- NOT artlessly ("honestly", "sincerely")! Do the Senators and judges act with honesty and sincerity? Do they vote heroicaly? Take a wild guess!
And why do you suppose they don't have just ONE money-empowered candidate or party? Something to think about?