For combined systems, I definitely prefer Abd's suggestion: vote a Range ballot, count it by various rules, and if the winner by the different rules does not agree, hold a runoff. In most cases, it would agree; and in the rest, a runoff would be a worthwhile second look at the best candidates, not a timewasting requirement to repeat a determination already given.
Jameson 2012/2/2 Raph Frank <raph...@gmail.com> > On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 3:22 AM, Dave Ketchum <da...@clarityconnect.com> > wrote: > > Voter can vote as in: > > . FPTP, ranking the single candidate liked best, and treating all > others > > as equally liked less or disliked. > > . Approval, ranking those equally liked best, and treating all > others as > > equally liked less or disliked. > > . IRV, giving each voted for a different rank, with higher ranks for > > those liked best, and realizing that IRV vote counters would read only as > > many of the higher rankings as needed to make their decisions. > > . Condorcet, ranking the one or more liked, using higher ranks for > those > > liked best, and ranking equally when more than one are liked equally. > > You can combine all of those methods (though not IRV) into a > super-ballot. I think this was suggested on this list at some point. > > Basically, you give each candidate a rating, but fractional rankings > are allowed. > > You then construct the condorcet matrix. If a voter ranks A as 1 and > B as 1.5, then that counts as half a vote for A over B. > > However, if the voter votes A as 1 and B as 5, then that only counts > as 1 vote for A over B, since each voter gets a maximum of 1 vote. > > Ranked candidates are considered preferred by a full vote over unranked. > > This allows the voters to decide which method to use. > > Condorcet > - just rank the candidates in order of your choice, equals allowed > > Approval > - rank approved candidates as 1 > > Range/Scorevoting > - rank all candidates from 0 to 1 (0 = favorite) > > Each voter could decide, without one group having much more power than > others. > > Abstains aren't handled that well. Scorevoting assumes that they > should have no effect. > > In theory, the rule could be that if a candidate is not ranked, then > no preference ordering is assumed. The ballot would have a zero for > all comparisons relative to that candidate. > > However, that is a lot of hassle, maybe there could be a box to > indicate how you want unranked candidates handled. Do you want them > equal lowest rank, or abstain. >
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info