Favourability voting: Difference between revisions

Line 7:

=Method=

Favourability Voting is a [[Cardinal voting|cardinal voting method]] based on both score voting and approval voting in which voters numerically ~~score~~ 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 +57.80% approval and -45.70% disapproval (for a net favourability of +12.10%) 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 -66.80% 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.

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.

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.

Line 76:

=Outcomes=

Let's try an election with twice as many candidates (6).

{| class="wikitable sortable mw-collapsible" cellpadding="3" border=""

|+Erin wins in approval with a sum of +388.63.

|+Erin wins in approval with a sum of +388.63 (average: +64.23%).

|- align="center"

| colspan="2" rowspan="2" |'''Approval'''

Line 84:

! rowspan="2" | Sum

|- align="center"

! class="against" | Erin

! class="against" |Erin

! class="against" |Martin

! class="against" |Casey

! class="against" |

Riley

! class="against" |~~Anna~~

! class="against" |Blythe

!Leslie

!Devin

|- align="center"

! rowspan="6" |for

! rowspan="7" |for

! class="for" |Erin

| bgcolor="yellow" |'''+86.66'''

Line 99:

| class="loss" |'''+66.32'''

| bgcolor="yellow" |'''+58.65'''

| bgcolor="yellow" |'''+36.37'''

| bgcolor="yellow" | '''+33.12'''

| bgcolor="yellow" |'''+~~388~~.63'''

| bgcolor="yellow" |'''+385.38'''

|- align="center"

! class="for" |Martin

| bgcolor="yellow" |'''+51.73'''

| bgcolor="yellow" | +55.44

| bgcolor="yellow" |'''+60.73'''

Line 109:

| bgcolor="yellow" | +33.65

| bgcolor="yellow" |'''+54.07'''

| +~~283~~.32

| +301.02

|- align="center"

! class="for" |Casey

Line 117:

| class="loss" |'''+72.63'''

| class="loss" |'''+66.37'''

| bgcolor="yellow" |'''+50.35'''

| bgcolor="yellow" | '''+50.35'''

| +338.90

|- align="center"

Line 129:

| +307.73

|- align="center"

! class="for" |~~Anna~~

! class="for" |Blythe

| class="loss" | +33.47

| class="loss" |'''+47.93'''

| class="loss" |'''+50.45'''

| bgcolor="yellow" | +59.62

| bgcolor="yellow" |'''+77.20'''

| bgcolor="yellow" | +68.50

| bgcolor="yellow" |'''+57.70'''

| +~~344~~.42

| +346.94

|- align="center"

⚫

|-

!Leslie

!Devin

| class="loss" | +18.93

| class="loss" | +25.69

| class="loss" | +37.30

| class="loss" | +40.12

| bgcolor="yellow" |'''+90.64'''

| bgcolor="yellow" |'''+88.62'''

| class="loss" | +11.40

| class="loss" | +26.60

| class="loss" | +~~210~~.56

| class="loss" | +211.36

⚫

|-

|}

{| class="wikitable sortable mw-collapsible" cellpadding="3" border=""

|+~~Devin~~ wins in disapproval with a sum of -123.74.

|+Leslie wins in disapproval with a sum of -123.74 (average: -20.94%)

|- align="center"

| colspan="2" rowspan="2" |'''Disapproval'''

! colspan="6" |against

! rowspan="2" |Sum

Line 157:

Line 158:

! class="against" |Erin

! class="against" | Martin

! class="against" |Martin

! class="against" |Casey

! class="against" |Riley

! class="against" | ~~Anna~~

! class="against" |Blythe

! class="against" |~~Devin~~

! class="against" |Leslie

|- align="center"

! rowspan="6" |for

! class="for" |Erin

| class="loss" |–49.40

| bgcolor="yellow" |'''–35.22'''

| bgcolor="yellow" |'''–35.44'''

| bgcolor="yellow" |'''–37.80'''

| class="loss" |–70.80

| class="loss" |–70.70

| bgcolor="yellow" |'''~~–36~~.74'''

| bgcolor="yellow" | '''–46.34'''

| class="loss" |~~–45~~.72

| class="loss" |–41.80

| class="loss" |~~–275~~.68

| class="loss" |–281.48

|- align="center"

! class="for" |Martin

| class="loss" |–44.55

| class="loss" |–44.69

| class="loss" |–55.55

| bgcolor="yellow" |–60.57

| bgcolor="yellow" |'''–39.75'''

| bgcolor="yellow" |–42.40

| class="loss" |~~–35~~.40

| class="loss" |–31.44

| class="loss" |~~–278~~.22

| class="loss" |–274.40

|- align="center"

! class="for" |Casey

! class="for" | Casey

| class="loss" |–51.13

| bgcolor="yellow" |'''–43.40'''

| class="loss" | –57.66

| class="loss" |–57.80

| class="loss" |–45.70

| class="loss" |–32.74

| class="loss" |–87.20

| class="loss" |–87.35

| class="loss" |~~–317~~.49

| class="loss" |–318.12

|- align="center"

! class="for" |Riley

| bgcolor="yellow" |'''–65.89'''

| class="loss" |–61.13

| bgcolor="yellow" |'''–36.44'''

| class="loss" |–26.80

| class="loss" |'''–17.83'''

| bgcolor="yellow" |'''–29.34'''

| bgcolor="yellow" |'''–29.10'''

| class="loss" | –237.43

| class="loss" |–237.19

|- align="center"

! class="for" |~~Anna~~

! class="for" |Blythe

| class="loss" |–33.51

| class="loss" |–50.22

| bgcolor="yellow" |~~–40~~.40

| bgcolor="yellow" |–30.80

| bgcolor="yellow" |–38.45

| class="loss" |–41.80

| class="loss" |–93.07

| class="loss" |–93.26

| class="loss" |~~–297~~.45

| class="loss" | –288.04

|- align="center"

|-

!Leslie

!Devin

| bgcolor="yellow" |'''–12.57'''

| bgcolor="yellow" |'''–15.93'''

| bgcolor="yellow" |'''–16.45'''

| class="loss" |–31.10

| bgcolor="yellow" |'''~~–25~~.47'''

| bgcolor="yellow" |'''–27.34'''

| bgcolor="yellow" |'''–22.22'''

| bgcolor="yellow" |'''~~–123~~.74'''

| bgcolor="yellow" |'''–125.61'''

|}

<table class="sortable mw-collapsible ~~mw-collapsed~~" cellpadding="3" border=""><caption></caption><tr align="center"><td colspan="2" rowspan="2">Results </td><th colspan="5">against </th></tr>

<table class="sortable mw-collapsible" cellpadding="3" border=""><caption>'''Erin wins in favourability with a sum of +103.90 (average: +14.84%).'''</caption><tr align="center"><td colspan="2" rowspan="2">Results </td><th colspan="6">against </th><th rowspan="2">Sum</th></tr>

<td class="against">Martin </td>

<td class="against">Casey </td>

<td class="against"> Riley</td>

<td class="against">Blythe</td><td>Leslie</td></tr>

</tr>

</tr>

<td class="for"> Martin </td>

</tr>

<td class="for"> Casey </td>

</tr>

<td class="for">Riley</td>

</tr>

<td class="for">Blythe </td>

</tr>

<td class="for">Leslie</td>

</table>

The ranked order of the candidates in this election for score voting would be:

#'''Erin (86.66%)'''

#Blythe (68.50%)

#Martin (55.44%)

# Riley (53.44%)

#Casey (45.97%)

#Leslie (26.60%)

However, under PFV (averages for each candidate are shown in brackets) this becomes:

#'''Erin (+17.32%)'''

# Leslie (+14.29%)

#Riley (+11.76%)

#Blythe (+9.82%)

# Martin (+4.44%)

#Casey (+3.46%)

This difference is created by the fact that when factoring in all of the distinct matchups and disapprovals, Leslie has not only a low approval rating but also low disapproval rating (implying a certain level of neutrality or indifference from the electorate), which cancels each other out in PFV, unlike in SV, where this is ignored and only the candidate's low approval is considered. Combined with the fact that all of the other contenders have higher disapproval, this propels Leslie upwards from 6th place all the way up to 2nd place. This means, in theory, PFV will be more likely to elect inoffensive candidates at a greater rate than most other voting systems.

=Rationale=

=Rationale =

Favourability Voting encompasses all types of different possibilities, whereas with even the most detailed of other alternative voting systems, much of these are ignored. Let’s give an example of a single-winner election. Whereas in regular score voting, a voter who scores a candidate or party 50% could be interpreted as being three entirely different kinds of voters:

*Someone who both loves and hates everything in the platform (this can be caused by a conflict in which someone believes that all of these policies will lead to both positive and negative impacts at the same time: "side effects")

*Somebody who agrees with half of the platform but disagrees with the other half (for example, if someone is socially conservative and economically left-wing, then combining socially progressive with economically left-wing positions could turn this person into being half in support (on economic issues) and half against them (on social issues)

Line 290:

Line 316:

Here is a very good example by someone online of how cyclical preferences (which aren’t allowed by most voting systems, but are featured by Pairwise Favourability Voting) can occur: "Let's say I'm a Republican who prefers John Kasich to Donald Trump because I think Donald Trump isn't as trustworthy. But I prefer Donald Trump to Rand Paul because I'm a huge fan of the military. Yet Rand Paul is preferable to me over John Kasich, because he has a better policy on the free market; that may not have been a factor into Trump vs. Paul because my love of the military overwhelmed everything else, but let's say Kasich wasn't very hawkish, either, so the military didn't factor into that preference. One can see how "circular" i.e. intransitive preferences might be possible in a wide variety of circumstances for logical reasons in a complex world with complex choices."

=History =

=History=

The Favourability Voting family of voting systems was originally just an idea which occurred from a major revelation, thanks to inspiration from my first cousin (due to them often having trouble fitting on a regular score voting spectrum of 0-100 and ending up, even though it still didn’t feel right, just having to settle with 50% instead of being allowing you to be high in both directions: both +100% approval and -100% disapproval at the same time), but ultimately became more developed later on and finally devised on June 13, 2021, culminating in the creation of the this page, on August 27, 2021. Think of the Favourability Voting system as being a combined mix of score voting and approval voting: having a scoring range of 0.00-100.00 but with an additional differentiated positive layer and negative layer being on top of this aspect. If one decides to leave a rating blank then this is left out and not counted as being inside the vote. By this way of combining the two systems, it can serve as an easy and good compromise between both approval and score voting advocates, while also being able to swiftly capture and magically provide information at an even higher level, more so than both of these systems.