Mr. Saari has suggested having fractional votes as a part of approval voting. He is, of course. correct that "absolute" support ranges from 100 percent (1.0 yes) to minus 100 percent (1.0 no). Condorcet by itself only shows relative support such as A 1.0 yes, B 0.9 yes being counted the same as A 0.9 no, B 1.0 no. I would suggest that the candidates would put major pressure on the voters to vote whole (1) yes or no votes. The simple 3 voter case-- Voter 1 A 0.5 yes B 0.4 no Voter 2 A 0.4 yes B 0.5 no Voter 3 B 1.0 yes A 1.0 no Who wins ? B has a combined 0.1 yes (noting that only Voter 3 gave B a full vote). A has a combined 0.1 no. ----------- I have suggested a 3 step process for executive and judicial elections- The voters vote yes or no on each candidate and rank their choices separately such as A no 5 B yes 3 C yes 2 D no 4 E yes 1 1. Only the majority yes candidates are able to be elected (noting 0, 1 or 2 or more candidates will get yes majorities). 2. If 2 or more candidates get a majority yes vote, then they should go head to head (i.e. Condorcet). 3. If there is no Condorcet winner, then the candidate with the lowest number of first choice votes should lose with step 2 being repeated. [The reason being that it is more probable that such fewest number of voters are incorrect.] In other words, a combination of Approval, Condorcet and Instant Run-Off (as a tie breaker). Individually, Approval, Condorcet and Instant Run-Off each have major defects. Combined, they work. As an interim measure, simple approval voting and nonpartisan elections for executive and judicial elections is probably necessary to avoid a Civil War II in the U.S.-- I am not sure if the body politic in the U.S. can take any more of the vicious attack ad elections of 1988, 1992 and 1996 combined with the pending formation of the Reform Party and its running of candidates for the Congress and state legislatures (with the resulting extremist plurality politics sure to occur).
