3-2-1 voting: Difference between revisions

Content added Content deleted
imported>Homunq
No edit summary
imported>Homunq
Line 25: Line 25:
In this method, each candidate can pre-rate other candidates "OK", "conditionally OK", or "bad". If they do not explicitly pre-rate, they are considered to rate all others "conditionally OK". Once all ratings have been submitted, all "conditionally OK" ratings are turned to "Bad" if the rating coming the other way is "Bad", and to "OK" otherwise. Candidate ratings are public information.
In this method, each candidate can pre-rate other candidates "OK", "conditionally OK", or "bad". If they do not explicitly pre-rate, they are considered to rate all others "conditionally OK". Once all ratings have been submitted, all "conditionally OK" ratings are turned to "Bad" if the rating coming the other way is "Bad", and to "OK" otherwise. Candidate ratings are public information.


When a voter leaves a candidate X blank/unrated, and rates exactly one other candidate Y as "Good", that counts as rating X as "OK" if Y rated X "OK". Otherwise it counts as rating X "Bad".
When a voter leaves a candidate X blank/unrated, and rates exactly one other candidate Y as "Good", that counts as rating X as "OK" if Y rated X "OK". Otherwise it counts as rating X "Bad". Implicit OKs in this sense are counted as lower than explicit OKs in step 3.


For example, if I rated only Aurelio "good" and left Beth and Chung blank; and Aurelio rated Beth as "OK" and Chung as "Bad", then I'd count as giving those ratings. If I'd also rated Amy "good", then my blank rating for Beth would count as "bad", no matter what Amy and Aurelio said.
For example, if I rated only Aurelio "good" and left Beth and Chung blank; and Aurelio rated Beth as "OK" and Chung as "Bad", then I'd count as giving those ratings. If I'd also rated Amy "good", then my blank rating for Beth would count as "bad", no matter what Amy and Aurelio said.