4 ms·
I like this idea the more I think about it, and I think it compares very well to methods being discussed elsewhere in this thread such as STAR (see https://news
by iainmerrick 8y ago
I like this idea the more I think about it, and I think it compares very well to methods being discussed elsewhere in this thread such as STAR (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18397839 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18397839)
I just thought of a way to possibly make it more intuitive. Use ranked voting, with the addition of a “nobody below this line” item that you can add to your ranking anywhere you like. Then at the runoff stage, you use approval voting, with “nobody below here” determining which candidates you approve.
That gives you a nice easy-to-understand runoff, and is maybe even more understandable than normal ranked voting because you get to explicitly separate out the candidates you really can’t stomach. I suspect some people don’t like ranked voting because you’re expected to stack-rank lots of candidates you dislike.
- quadrangle 8y agoI'm convinced that a "None of the Others" mark is pretty essential to making any ranked system good. But we're talking a lot of complexity to have both ranks and scores as separate marks. Super long ballot, will turn away most voters and seem really hard to process. It sounds like you might appreciate 3-2-1 voting. https://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/3-2-1_voting https://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/3-2-1_voting
- tunesmith 8y agoIt wouldn't have to be both ranks and scores. It could just be scores. But you then order the scores numerically to infer the rank. And you use the rank to find the Condorcet Winner. If there is no CW, then you use the scores from the candidates in the Smith Set to identify the winner from that Smith Set. (The point of the above was to respect the Condorcet Criterion, and 3-2-1 voting does not meet that criterion.)