3-2-1 voting: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
imported>Homunq |
imported>Homunq |
||
Line 50:
| Lions
| bgcolor="#fcc"|25
| bgcolor="#
|bgcolor="#fcc"| 40
| bgcolor="#fcc"|
Line 56:
| Tigers
| bgcolor="#cfc"| 35
| bgcolor="#beb"|20
| bgcolor="#cfc"|45
| bgcolor="#cfc"| 55
Line 62:
| Knights
| bgcolor="#cfc"| 44
| bgcolor="#beb"|0
| bgcolor="#fcc"|56
| bgcolor="#fcc"|
Line 68:
| Bulldogs
| bgcolor="#cfc"| 40
| bgcolor="#beb"| 5
| bgcolor="#cfc"|55
| bgcolor="#fcc"|45
|
Revision as of 16:06, 15 December 2016
In 3-2-1 voting, voters may rate each candidate “Good”, “Acceptable”, or “Rejected”. It has three steps:
- Find 3 Semifinalists: the candidates with the most “good” ratings. (If this is a partisan election, no two semifinalists may come from the same party).
- Find 2 Finalists: the semifinalists with the fewest rejections.
- Find 1 winner: the finalist who is rated above the other on more ballots.
Examples
Imagine an election for a high school mascot, in which the options are “Bulldogs”, “Lions”, “Tigers”, or “Knights”, with the following votes:
Faction size | "Good" candidates | "Acceptable" candidates | "Bad" candidates |
---|---|---|---|
39 | Bulldogs, Knights | Lions, Tigers | |
1 | Bulldogs | Knights, Lions, Tigers | |
35 | Tigers | Lions | Bulldogs, Knights |
20 | Lions | Tigers | Bulldogs, Knights |
5 | Knights, Lions | Bulldogs | Tigers |
Candidate | "Good" ratings | "Acceptable" ratings | "Bad" ratings | 2-way score |
---|---|---|---|---|
Lions | 25 | 35 | 40 | |
Tigers | 35 | 20 | 45 | 55 |
Knights | 44 | 0 | 56 | |
Bulldogs | 40 | 5 | 55 | 45 |