3-2-1 voting: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
imported>Homunq No edit summary |
imported>Homunq No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
In 3-2-1 voting, voters may rate each candidate “Good”, “OK”, or “Bad”. (Alternately, they may rate one candidate "Good" and leave the rest blank; in this case their chosen candidate's predeclared ratings of the others are used to fill in the blanks.¹) The tallying process has three steps: |
In 3-2-1 voting, voters may '''rate each candidate “Good”, “OK”, or “Bad”'''. (Alternately, they may rate one candidate "Good" and leave the rest blank; in this case their chosen candidate's predeclared ratings of the others are used to fill in the blanks.¹) The tallying process has three steps: |
||
* Find 3 Semifinalists: the candidates with the most “good” ratings.² |
* Find '''3 Semifinalists''': the candidates with the '''most “good”''' ratings.² |
||
* Find 2 Finalists: the semifinalists with the fewest "bad" ratings. |
* Find '''2 Finalists''': the semifinalists with the fewest '''"bad" ratings'''. |
||
* Find 1 winner: the finalist who is rated above the other on more ballots. |
* Find '''1 winner''': the finalist who is rated '''above the other''' on more ballots (like a virtual runoff). |
||
== Footnote ¹: Blank ratings == |
== Footnote ¹: Blank ratings == |
||