Govern us. They wouldn't be worse for sure.

Either ranked-choice voting or majority judgement.

::: spoiler Here's why

Majority Judgment:

1. Voters grade each candidate on a scale (e.g. Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor, Reject)
2. The winner is determined by the highest median grade
3. Ties are broken by measuring how many voters gave grades above and below the median

Ranked Choice Voting:

1. Voters rank candidates in order of preference
2. If no candidate has >50%, the lowest-ranked candidate is eliminated
3. Their votes transfer to those voters' next choices
4. Process repeats until someone has majority

Majority Judgment optimizes for:

1. Consensus/Compromise.

By using median grades, it finds candidates who are "acceptable" to a broad swath of voters. A candidate strongly loved by 40% but strongly disliked by 60% will typically lose to someone viewed as "good enough" by most. This pushes politics toward centrist candidates who may not be anyone's perfect choice but whom most find acceptable. The grading system lets voters express "this candidate meets/doesn't meet my minimum standards" rather than just relative preferences

2. Merit-based evaluation

Voters judge each candidate against an absolute standard rather than just comparing them. This can help identify when all candidates are weak (if they all get low grades) or when multiple candidates are strong. It moves away from pure competition between candidates toward evaluation against civic ideals

Ranked Choice Voting optimizes for:

1. Coalition building

By eliminating lowest-ranked candidates and redistributing votes, it rewards candidates who can be many voters' second or third choice. This encourages candidates to appeal beyond their base and build broader coalitions. Unlike MJ, it's more focused on relative preferences than absolute standards

2. Elimination of "spoiler effects"

Voters can support their true first choice without fear of helping their least favorite candidate win. This allows multiple similar candidates to run without splitting their shared base. The system is built around the idea that votes should transfer to ideologically similar alternatives

Both systems optimize for honest voting more than plurality voting, but in different ways:

MJ encourages honest evaluation because exaggerating grades can backfire if too many others don't follow suit RCV encourages honest ranking because putting your true preference first doesn't hurt your later choices

The key philosophical difference is that:

• MJ asks "What level of support does each candidate have across the whole electorate?"
• RCV asks "Which candidate has the strongest coalition of support when similar preferences are consolidated?"

This means MJ tends to favor broad acceptability while RCV tends to favor strong but potentially narrower bases of support that can build winning coalitions. Neither approach is inherently more democratic - they just emphasize different aspects of democratic decision-making.

The most raped dolphin wins?

You assume that dolphins don't already have democracy. If wild dogs have it figured out, then it's certainly possible, even likely, that dolphins do too. Imagine what a pod of dolphins might vote to do with a land mammal that has the audacity to try and teach them democracy.

First post the post, I guess. I’m told all the other options are too difficult for people to understand, apparently.

The dolphins should do democratic centralism