Asset voting – an interesting and simple multiwinner voting system (rangevoting.org)

Asset voting is a voting system where voters cast a single vote (some variants allow it to be split between multiple candidates) with those receiving votes being allowed to transfer them during a negotiation stage either freely or in accordance with some set procedure. The winners are the N candidates who hold the most votes after the negotiation stage (or some other quota in some variants).

Asset voting is as far as I know one of two voting systems (the other being random ballot) where a voter doesn't gain any power by considering the votes of other voters. I think that offers a mitigation to rational voter irrationality as almost everyone already trusts someone and could under such a system vote for that person regardless of their electability, assuming gaining ballot access is very easy or everyone is automatically a candidate.

Voters in large elections have no incentive to research candidates as their individual vote has virtually no change of having an effect on the outcome. With asset voting, voters would not have to research the electable candidates to determinate which claims about them are true and which one of them is the lesser evil. The voter could instead outsource that task to someone they already trust and that person would either have received enough votes to make it worthwhile or would themselves do the same.

Another possible advantage of asset voting is that it makes some people uncomfortable about potential corruption at the negotiation stage even though I don't see why corruption at that stage would be any easier or more impactful than corruption after the election. That discomfort may cause some voters to value trustworthiness and integrity more in candidates.