Explicit approval voting: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 3:
This is mathematically equivalent to 2-level [[Score voting]] with averaging, though the abstain votes are explicit rather than implicit, and the levels are essentially (−1, +1) rather than (0, 1), so they are affected by the psychological consequences of disapproval voting.
The Wikimedia Foundation has used this method for Board of Trustees and Funds Dissemination Committee elections in [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/Results 2013], [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2015/Results 2015], and [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2017/Results 2017], after previously using [[Approval voting]] and [[Schulze method]]. Wikipedia uses this in a non-binding way for Administrator nominations,<ref>[[W:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#Decision%20process|w:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#Decision process]]</ref> etc.
If tallied using normal Score voting rules (where O=0, N=1, S=2), the 2015 Board election would have had different winners, with the candidate in 4th place moving up to 2nd. The 2017 Board and 2015 FDC elections would have had a different top-3 order, but the same 3 candidate would have won.
In all 8 elections from 2013-2017, the most common vote was ''Neutral'', which was cast about twice as often as ''Support'', which in turn was cast about twice as often as ''Oppose.''
= References =
<references />
[[Category:Cardinal voting methods]]
| |||