Favourability voting: Difference between revisions
I'll return soon in order to finish this off.
(This is an unfinished section for outcomes. I will get back to completing the ballots and also elaborating on each outcome later.) |
(I'll return soon in order to finish this off.) |
||
Line 46:
! Candidate !! A !! B !! C !! Sum
|-
| A || '''–33.58
|-
|
–154.71
|-
| C
|}
Line 56 ⟶ 57:
{| class="wikitable"
|+
Totals
|-
!
!Sum
|-
| A
|-
|
|-
|
|}
Line 75 ⟶ 78:
=Outcomes=
{| class="wikitable sortable mw-collapsible" cellpadding="3" border=""
|- align="center"
| colspan="2" rowspan="2" |'''Approval'''
! colspan="6" |against
! rowspan="2" |Sum
|- align="center"
! class="against" |Erin
! class="against" |Martin
! class="against" |Casey
! class="against" |
Riley
! class="against" |Anna
!Devin
|- align="center"
! rowspan="6" |for
! class="for" |Erin
| bgcolor="yellow" |
'''+86.66'''
| class="loss" | +47.93
| bgcolor="yellow" |
| class="loss" |
| bgcolor="yellow" |
|'''+36.37'''
|'''+388.63'''
|- align="center"
! class="for" |Martin
| bgcolor="yellow" | '''+51.73'''
| bgcolor="yellow" | +55.
| bgcolor="yellow" |
| class="loss" | +45.40
| bgcolor="yellow" | +33.65
| '''+54.07'''
| +283.32
|- align="center"
! class="for" |Casey
| class="loss" | +57.13
| class="loss" | +46.45
| bgcolor="yellow" | +45.97
| class="loss" |
| class="loss" |
|'''+50.35'''
| +338.90
|- align="center"
! class="for" |Riley
| bgcolor="yellow" | +48.91
| bgcolor="yellow" | '''+51.
| bgcolor="yellow" | +52.73
| bgcolor="yellow" | +53.44
| class="loss" | +49.47
| +52.14
| +307.73
|- align="center"
! class="for" |
| class="loss" | +33.47
| class="loss" |
| bgcolor="yellow" | +59.62
| bgcolor="yellow" |
| bgcolor="yellow" | +68.50
| bgcolor="yellow" |'''+57.70'''
| +344.42
|-
!Devin
| +18.
| +25.69
| +37.30
|
| +11.40
| +
| +210.56
|}
{| class="wikitable sortable mw-collapsible" cellpadding="3" border=""
|- align="center"
| colspan="2" rowspan="2" |'''Disapproval'''
! colspan="6" |against
! rowspan="2" |Sum
|- align="center"
! class="against" |
! class="against" |Martin
! class="against" |Casey
! class="against" |Riley
! class="against" |Anna
!Devin
|- align="center"
! rowspan="6" |for
! class="for" |Erin
| bgcolor="yellow" | -49.40
| class="loss" |
| bgcolor="yellow" |
| class="loss" | -70.80
| bgcolor="yellow" |
| -45.72
| -276.75
|- align="center"
! class="for" |Martin
Line 162 ⟶ 177:
| bgcolor="yellow" | -55.55
| bgcolor="yellow" | -60.57
| class="loss" |
| bgcolor="yellow" | -42.40
| -35.40
| -278.22
|- align="center"
! class="for" |Casey
| class="loss" | -51.13
| class="loss" |
| bgcolor="yellow" | -57.66
| class="loss" | -45.70
| class="loss" | -32.74
| -87.20
| -317.49
|- align="center"
! class="for" |Riley
| bgcolor="yellow" |
| bgcolor="yellow" | -61.13
| bgcolor="yellow" |
| bgcolor="yellow" | -26.80
| class="loss" |
| -
| -237.43
|- align="center"
! class="for" |Anna
Line 188 ⟶ 206:
| bgcolor="yellow" | -38.45
| bgcolor="yellow" | -41.80
| -93.07
| -297.45
|-
!Devin
|'''-12.57'''
|'''-15.93'''
|'''-16.45'''
| -31.10
|'''-25.47'''
|'''-22.22'''
|'''-123.74'''
|}
<table class="sortable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"
<tr align="center">
<td class="against"> <span class="cand">Erin</span></td>
<td class="against">Martin</td>
<td class="against">Casey </td>
<td class="against"> Riley</td>
<td class="against">Anna</td>
</tr>
Line 213 ⟶ 233:
<td class="loss">410</td>
<td bgcolor="yellow"> 461 </td>
<td class="loss">298 </td>
<td bgcolor="yellow">610 </td>
</tr>
<tr align="center">
Line 222 ⟶ 242:
<td bgcolor="yellow"> 461 </td>
<td class="loss"> 458 </td>
<td bgcolor="yellow"> 485 </td>
</tr>
<tr align="center">
<td class="for"> Casey </td>
<td class="loss"> 460</td>
<td class="loss"> 460 </td>
<td bgcolor="yellow">460 </td>
<td class="loss"> 460</td>
<td class="loss"> 460</td>
Line 234 ⟶ 254:
<tr align="center">
<td class="for">Riley</td>
<td bgcolor="yellow"> 623 </td>
<td bgcolor="yellow"> 463 </td>
<td bgcolor="yellow"> 461</td>
<td bgcolor="yellow">440 </td>
<td class="loss"> 312</td>
</tr>
<tr align="center">
<td class="for">Anna</td>
<td class="loss"> 311</td>
<td class="loss"> 436 </td>
<td bgcolor="yellow"> 461 </td>
<td bgcolor="yellow"> 609</td>
Line 256 ⟶ 276:
*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)
*Or even simply as a person who has neutral opinions (apathetic; doesn’t necessarily approve nor disapprove, just shrugs: some people may know about what a candidate stands for but they just still have no strong opinion about them) on the entirety of the premise
Line 270 ⟶ 290:
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 =
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
| |||