Explicit approval voting: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) m (Psephomancy moved page S/(S+O) to Explicit Approval Voting: A real name was proposed on Reddit) |
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) (add info) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Explicit approval''' voting is a [[Ratings ballot|rated voting system]] which is essentially [[Approval voting]] with abstentions. In order to allow abstention, voters must explicitly state disapproval. So, the ballot will list ''Approve'' and ''Disapprove'' for each candidate, and leaving a candidate without either mark represents abstention. The winner is the candidate who has the highest approval among those who didn't abstain: A/(A+D)<ref name=":0">{{Cite web|title=Explicit Approval & Hybrid Approval voting|url=https://www.reddit.com/r/EndFPTP/comments/c6chef/explicit_approval_hybrid_approval_voting/|website=r/EndFPTP subreddit|access-date=2019-08-12|language=en}}</ref> |
|||
By itself, this leads to the possibility of a [[Dark horse|dark horse]]: an unknown candidate winning with only a few approve votes and many abstentions. This can be prevented through the use of various quotas,<ref name=":0" /> but hasn't been a problem in practical elections. |
|||
== Usage == |
|||
Wikimedia and Wikipedia elections are held using an equivalent system, in which voters must choose ''Support'', ''Oppose'', or ''Neutral'' for every candidate. The winner is the candidate with the highest support percentage: the highest proportion of ''Support'' votes out of combined ''Support'' and ''Oppose'' votes = S/(S+O). |
|||
Approval voting is generally equivalent to 2-level [[Score voting]] (where the levels are "0" and "1"). Wikimedia's variant is equivalent to 2-level Score voting where voters may explicitly abstain, and the default choice is to abstain. The levels in Wikimedia's system imply (−1, +1) rather than (0, 1), so they may be affected by the psychological consequences of [[disapproval voting]].<ref>See also [[W:Combined approval voting#Properties|Wikipedia:Combined approval voting#Properties]], in particular [[W:Combined approval voting#cite%20ref-7|the Baujard citation]]</ref> |
Approval voting is generally equivalent to 2-level [[Score voting]] (where the levels are "0" and "1"). Wikimedia's variant is equivalent to 2-level Score voting where voters may explicitly abstain, and the default choice is to abstain. The levels in Wikimedia's system imply (−1, +1) rather than (0, 1), so they may be affected by the psychological consequences of [[disapproval voting]].<ref>See also [[W:Combined approval voting#Properties|Wikipedia:Combined approval voting#Properties]], in particular [[W:Combined approval voting#cite%20ref-7|the Baujard citation]]</ref> |
||
| Line 5: | Line 10: | ||
The Wikimedia Foundation has used this method for Board of Trustees and Funds Dissemination Committee elections in [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/Results 2013], [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2015/Results 2015], and [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2017/Results 2017], after previously using [[Approval voting]] and [[Schulze method]]. Wikipedia uses this in a non-binding way for Administrator nominations,<ref>[[W:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#Decision%20process|w:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#Decision process]]</ref> etc. |
The Wikimedia Foundation has used this method for Board of Trustees and Funds Dissemination Committee elections in [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/Results 2013], [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2015/Results 2015], and [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2017/Results 2017], after previously using [[Approval voting]] and [[Schulze method]]. Wikipedia uses this in a non-binding way for Administrator nominations,<ref>[[W:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#Decision%20process|w:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#Decision process]]</ref> etc. |
||
= Analysis = |
=== Analysis === |
||
If tallied using normal Score voting rules (where O=0, N=1, S=2), the 2015 Wikimedia Board election would have had a different winner, with the candidate in 4th place moving up to 2nd. The 2017 Board and 2015 FDC elections would have had a different top-3 order, but the same 3 candidates would have won. |
If tallied using normal Score voting rules (where O=0, N=1, S=2), the 2015 Wikimedia Board election would have had a different winner, with the candidate in 4th place moving up to 2nd. The 2017 Board and 2015 FDC elections would have had a different top-3 order, but the same 3 candidates would have won. |
||
In all 8 elections from 2013-2017, the most common vote was ''Neutral'', which was cast about twice as often as ''Support'', which in turn was cast about twice as often as ''Oppose''. Winners typically receive 70–85% support. |
In all 8 elections from 2013-2017, the most common vote was ''Neutral'', which was cast about twice as often as ''Support'', which in turn was cast about twice as often as ''Oppose''. Winners typically receive 70–85% support. |
||
= References = |
== References == |
||
<references /> |
<references /> |
||
[[Category:Cardinal voting methods]] |
[[Category:Cardinal voting methods]] |
||