  We evaluate the tendency for different voting methods to promote political
compromise and reduce tensions in a society by using computer simulations to
determine which voters candidates are incentivized to appeal to. We find that
Instant Runoff Voting incentivizes candidates to appeal to a wider range of
voters than Plurality Voting, but that it leaves candidates far more strongly
incentivized to appeal to their base than to voters in opposing factions. In
contrast, we find that Condorcet methods and STAR (Score Then Automatic Runoff)
Voting provide the most balanced incentives; these differences between voting
methods become more pronounced with more candidates are in the race and less
pronounced in the presence of strategic voting. We find that the incentives
provided by Single Transferable Vote to appeal to opposing voters are
negligible, but that a tweak to the tabulation algorithm makes them
substantial.
