3-2-1 voting: Difference between revisions

Line 23:

== Footnote ²: rules for the third semifinalist ==

There are two extra qualifications when choosing the third (weakest) semifinalist. First, they must not be of the same party as the other two; if they are, skip to the next-highest "good" ratings. This prevents one party from winning simply by controlling ~~the~~ three semifinalist slots. Second, they must have at least half as many "good" ratings as the first (strongest) semifinalist. If they don't, then skip step 2 entirely and make both semifinalists directly into finalists. This prevents a relatively unknown "also-ran" from winning an election with two dominant, highly-polarized candidates. A third candidate can win, but only by getting appreciable support.

There are two extra qualifications when choosing the third (weakest) semifinalist. First, they must not be of the same party as both of the other two; if they are, skip to the next-highest "good" ratings. This prevents one party from winning simply by controlling all three semifinalist slots. Second, they must have at least half as many "good" ratings as the first (strongest) semifinalist. If they don't, then skip step 2 entirely and make both semifinalists directly into finalists. This prevents a relatively unknown "also-ran" from winning an election with two dominant, highly-polarized candidates. A third candidate can win, but only by getting appreciable support.

== Tiebreaker ==