Support Accept Reject Abstain voting: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
imported>Homunq
No edit summary
imported>Homunq
No edit summary
# '''Voters can support, accept, reject, or abstain on each candidate. Default is abstain. Candidates get 2 points for each percent of "support" and 1 point for each percent of "accept", for a total of 0-200 points. '''
#*''"Support" the best candidates (perhaps a quarter of them), "reject" the worst (perhaps half of them). "Accept" and "abstain" are for the ones in the high middle range. For those, "accept" if you want to help them beat somebody worse, and "abstain" if you could live with them but are hoping for somebody better.''
# '''Eliminate any candidates withrejected underby 50over points50%, unless that leaves nobodyno candidates with over 50 points.'''
#* ''If possible, the winner shouldn't be somebody opposed by a majority. But this shouldn't lead to electing a candidate who couldn't get even supported by over 1/4 (that is, a majority of a divided majority) or accepted by a over 1/2.''
#* ''50 points would be the score of a candidate supported by 1/4 or accepted by 1/2. Anything less than this threshold probably indicates a lesser-known candidate who got a lot of 'abstains'; eliminating them here ensures they won't be the only candidate remaining after step 3. More than this threshold could be the score of a candidate who leads the strongest of various subfactions of a divided majority, such as Nashville in the example below; such a candidate should be taken seriously.''
# '''Eliminate any candidates rejected by over 50%, unless that leaves nobody.'''
#* ''If possible, the winner shouldn't be somebody opposed by a majority.''
# '''Highest points wins. In case of a tie, fewest rejections wins.'''
#* ''This finds the candidate with the widest and deepest support.''
== As the first round of a two-round system ("SARA with runoff") ==
 
If this system is used as the first round of a two-round runoff, then you want to use it to elect at two finalists in the first round. Thus, run the system twice. The first time, replace "50%" in step 32 with "2/3".
 
Then, to find the second winner, if the first-time winner got 1/3 or more support, first downweight those ballots as if you'd eliminated enough of them to make up 1/3 of the electorate. Otherwise, discard all of the ballots which supported first-time winner. After downweighting or discarding, run MASSARA normally.
 
If all the candidates in the first round got a majority of 0's, then you can still find two finalists as explained above. But the voters have sent a message that none of the candidates are good, so one way to deal with the situation would be to have a rule to allow candidates to transfer their 2-votes to new candidates who were not running in the first round, and if those transfers would have made the new candidates finalists, then add them to the second round along with the two finalists who did best in the first round. In that case, since there would be more than 2two candidates in the second round, it would be important to use MASSARA for the second round too.
 
== Relationship to NOTA ==
Anonymous user
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.

Navigation menu