IBIFA: Difference between revisions
Clean up formatting, add reference to Relevant rating
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) (add cat (hopefully correct)) |
(Clean up formatting, add reference to Relevant rating) |
||
Line 26:
IBIFA also does not sacrifice MCA's [[FBC]] compliance. If raising one's favorite candidate to equal-top doesn't make that candidate win, it also can't change the preexisting winner.
4-slot version:
* Voters fill out 4-slot ratings ballots, rating each candidate as either Top, Middle1, Middle2, or Bottom. Default rating is Bottom, signifying least preferred and unapproved.▼
▲*Voters fill out 4-slot ratings ballots, rating each candidate as either Top, Middle1, Middle2
>or Bottom. Default rating is Bottom, signifying least preferred and unapproved.▼
▲>Any rating above Bottom is interpreted as Approval.
▲>If any candidate/s X has a Top-Ratings score that is higher than any other candidate's approval
>score on ballots that don't top-rate X, elect the X with the highest TR score.▼
▲>Otherwise, if any candidate/s X has a Top+Middle1 score that is higher than any other candidate's
▲>Top+Middle1 score.
▲>Otherwise, elect the candidate with the highest Approval score.*(Obviously other slot names are possible, such as 3 2 1 0 or A B C D or Top, High Middle, Low Middle, Bottom.)
The 3-slot version:
▲
▲
▲>Any rating above Bottom is interpreted as Approval.
>If any candidate/s X has a Top-Ratings score that is higher than any other candidate's approval▼
▲>Otherwise, elect the candidate with the highest Approval score.*
It can also be adapted for use with ranked ballots:
* Voters rank the candidates, beginning with those they most prefer. Equal-ranking and truncation▼
▲*Voters rank the candidates, beginning with those they most prefer. Equal-ranking and truncation
are allowed.
* Ranking above at least one other candidate is interpreted as Approval.▼
▲Ranking above at least one other candidate is interpreted as Approval.
The ballots are interpreted as multi-slot ratings ballots thus:
* An approved candidate ranked below zero other candidates is interpreted as Top-Rated.
* An approved candidate ranked below one other candidate is interpreted as being in the second-highest ratings slot.
* An approved candidate ranked below
* An approved candidate ranked below
▲An approved candidate ranked below three other candidates is interpreted as being in the fourth-highest
And so on.
Say we label these ratings slot from the top A B C D etc.
* A candidate X's A score is the number of ballots on which it is A rated.
* A candidate X's A+B score is the number of ballots on which it is rated A or B.
* A candidate X's A+B+C score is the number of ballots on which it is rated A or B or C.
And so on.
▲
that don't A-rate X, then elect the X with the greatest A score.
Line 99 ⟶ 71:
And so on as in the versions that use a fixed number of ratings slots, if necessary electing the most
approved candidate.
See also [[Relevant Rating]], a method which follows the same methodology as IBIFA but is intended to be more similar to Majority Judgment than MCA.
[[Category:Single-winner voting methods]] [[Category:Median rating voting methods]]▼
▲[[Category:Single-winner voting methods]]
| |||