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.

Variants

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.

Method

Favourability Voting is a 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.

Examples

Results		against						Sum
Results		Erin	Martin	Casey	Riley	Blythe	Leslie	Sum
for	Erin							+103.90
	Martin							+26.62
	Casey							+26.62
	Riley							+70.54
	Blythe							+58.90
	Leslie							+85.75

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).