Another elimination method. Vote YES/NO on each choice and rank the choices using number votes- 1, 2, etc. Such votes can be combined, as has been mentioned on this list, using a scale vote--- 0 to 100 (or 10) (or C (if more than 100 or 10) where C is the number of choices -- provided that the YES/NO boundary is very clear to the voters). If the (remaining) number of choices is more than the number (remaining) to be elected, then 1. Do the Condorcet math 2. If no (or not enough) Condorcet Winner(s), then eliminate the choice with the most NO votes. 3. Repeat 1 and 2, if necessary. Theory (partially again)- YES = +100 to 0 percent acceptability NO = 0 to -100 percent acceptability [0 = twilight zone] With eliminations, at some point there will be 1 or M(ultiple) Condorcet Winners (CW). Again- Condorcet for a single winner is the limiting case for multiple winners (legislative (e.g. multi-member districts), executive (e.g. 2 or more sheriffs) or judicial (e.g. 2 or more judges)). 1 (or M) Test Winner(s) versus Test Loser (Other choices deemed Losers). ---- IRV fanatics fail to note that although a choice may have the fewest first choice votes, such choice may be a Condorcet Winner or may NOT have the least NO votes. A (extremist), Z (extremist) and M (moderate) 34 AZM 33 ZMA 32 MAZ 99 66 A > 33 Z 67 Z > 32 M (worst head to head defeat) 65 M > 34 A Who is more likely to have the most NO votes (an extremist or the moderate) ??? The minor chaos happens, of course, since simple rankings do NOT show acceptability while simple YES/NO does NOT show rankings (which is the problem with simple Approval Voting).
