Favourability voting: Difference between revisions

m
+ (One?) caveat.
(+ Newer, quadrant-based type of table, I'll get back to creating this later!)
m (+ (One?) caveat.)
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1:
'''Favourability voting''' is an ultra high-definition family of electoral systems. It includes any voting system which includes separate individual scales for both approval and disapproval and also allows voters to express these two metrics on a single candidate. This is notably the only one in which individual votes can be displayed as a point in a whole entire arranged matrix, of approval versus disapproval.
 
=Method=
=Variants=
 
Favourability Voting is a [[Cardinal voting|cardinal voting method]] based on both score voting and approval voting in which voters (usually numerically) grade each candidate and/or party on both of two separately divided scales: for approval and disapproval.
Besides the most simplified form, Evaluative Favourability Voting (EFV), with no scores and only upvotes and downvotes, and the singular form, Noncomparative Favourability Voting (NFV), Favourability Voting (FV) also has an even more extensive, one-on-one matchup variant; Pairwise Favourability Voting (PFV), which generates a heavily granular dataset. These two both collect more expressive information and show greater differentiation between voters than just about any other voting system does.
 
The final result for each of candidates or parties is then deduced from the net favourability, which is measuring the closeness towards a perfect score of 100% approval and 0% disapproval.
 
=Variants=
 
=Method=
 
Favourability Voting is a [[Cardinal voting|cardinal voting method]] based on both score voting and approval voting in which voters numerically grade each candidate and/or party on both of two separately divided scales: for approval (numbers from +0.00 to +100.00) and disapproval (numbers from -0.00 to -100.00). For example, in the more simple version, Noncomparative Favourability Voting, someone can simultaneously express +66.80% approval and -45.70% disapproval (for a net favourability of +19.10%) at the same time for any single candidate or party they wish. These two do not ever need to add up to each other. The positive percentages are then subtracted by the negative percentages to reach an election outcome, and whoever wins the highest sum (net approval) is selected. Pairwise Favourability Voting is even more intricate as this is where you freely measure how much you approve and disapprove of each candidate and/or party not just only individually but also in every single last possible one-on-one matchup there is. This is done and treated as wholly independent of each other and matchups such as A vs. B and B vs. A once again do not have to add up to 100 since they are not tied to each other (i.e. one might rate A in disapproval as -33.10% against B but B only -50.20% against A). As you can see, each cell is treated as a different scale from each other and thus intransitive (circular preference) results in matchups (such as A > B > C > A) are fully allowed as the calculation process, which is different from other pairwise methods in that an overall score for each candidate is derived from the summation of their personal score and matchup scores together, and as such manages to bypass Condorcet's paradox. Scientists have determined that circles of preference are a natural occurrence in humans and this is in fact how many of our thought processes play out.
 
==Pairwise Favourability Voting==
The final sum for each of candidates or parties is then deduced from the net favourability of not only the individual but also matchup scores, calculated by reducing the approvals by the disapprovals, and whoever has the highest rating then wins the election.
 
= Examples =
<table class="sortable mw-collapsible" cellpadding="3" border=""><tr align="center"><td colspan="2" rowspan="2">Results </td><th colspan="6"> against </th><th rowspan="2"> Sum</th></tr>
<tr align="center">
Line 75 ⟶ 76:
<td> +85.75</td></tr></table>
 
Favourability Voting is(FV) a [[Cardinalhas voting|cardinalan votingeven method]]more basedextensive, one-on-one bothmatchup scorevariant; votingPairwise andFavourability approvalVoting voting in(PFV), which votersgenerates numericallya gradeheavily eachgranular candidatedataset, and/ortypically partyby onusing both of two separately divided scales: for approval (numbers froma +0.00% to +100.00)% andrange disapprovalfor (numbersapprovals fromand a -0.00% to -100.00). For example, in the more simple version, Noncomparative Favourability Voting, someone can simultaneously express +66.80% approvalrange and -45.70% disapproval (for a net favourability of +19disapprovals.10%) atThis thesentiment-reading samesystem timecollects formore anyexpressive singleinformation candidateand orshow partygreater theydifferentiation wish.between Thesevoters twothan dojust notabout everany needother tovoting addsystem up to each otherdoes. The positivereason percentageswhy arePairwise thenFavourability subtractedVoting byis theeven negativemore percentages to reach an election outcome, and whoeverintricate winsthan the highestother sum (net approval)variations is selected. Pairwise Favourability Voting is even more intricate asbecause this is where you can freely measure how much you approve and disapprove of each candidate and/or party not just only individually but also in every single last possible one-on-one matchup there is. This is completely done and treated as wholly independent of each other and matchups such as A vs. B and B vs. A once again do not have to add up to 100 since they are not tied to each other (i.e. one might rate A in disapproval as -33.10% against B but B only -50.20% against A). As you can see, each cell is treated as a different scale from each other and thus intransitive (circular preference) results in matchups (such as A > B > C > A) are fully allowed as the calculation process, which is different from other pairwise methods in that an overall score for each candidate is derived from the summation of their personal score and matchup scores together, and as such manages to bypass Condorcet's paradox. Scientists have determined that circles of preference are a natural occurrence in humans and this is in fact how many of our thought processes play out.
 
You may also notice the background tints in the example table above. These four colour shades represent which one of the four quadrants each one of the matchups falls into: green for Approval (high approval, low disapproval), yellow for Bittersweetness (high approval, high disapproval), red for Disapproval (low approval, high disapproval), and last but not least, silver for Indifference (low approval, low disapproval).
 
==Other variants==
 
===Noncomparative Favourability Voting===
 
For example, in the more simple, singular version, Noncomparative Favourability Voting, someone can simultaneously express +66.80% approval and -45.70% disapproval (for a net favourability of +19.10%) at the same time for any single candidate or party they wish. These two do not ever need to add up to each other. The positive percentages are then subtracted by the negative percentages to reach an election outcome, and whoever wins the highest sum (net approval) is selected.
 
===Evaluative Favourability Voting===
 
Besides the other versions, there is also the most simplified form, which is Evaluative Favourability Voting (EFV), with no scores, and only upvotes and downvotes.
You may notice the background tints. These four colour shades represent which one of the four quadrants each one of the matchups falls into: green for Approval (high approval, low disapproval), yellow for Bittersweetness (high approval, high disapproval), red for Disapproval (low approval, high disapproval), and last but not least, silver for Indifference (low approval, low disapproval).
24

edits