RalphInOttawa

Joined 25 October 2023
m
rewording in a few spots
m (two spelling mistakes)
m (rewording in a few spots)
Line 5:
Feel free to put in your votes and have a look at your results. As a shared link, we will all see what's going on. And we might compete for the input. Therefore, to do your testing, you may want to make your entire set of votes on your own 2 column spreadsheet, copy and paste into the Voting sheet, and zip over to the Report sheet to print a pdf of the results before anyone else can wreck your input. You should also replace the Tiebreaks sheet values too, which means you will want to copy and paste from a 10 column spreadsheet, specifically taylored to the test you are doing.
 
 
I must doubletriple check the criteria, but should this method ever get a page on this website, here's what I would "vote" for:
 
 
 
'''Standard Vote''' (abbreviated as '''SV''') is an election vote-counting method that chooses a single candidate by using ranked ballots and the sequential elimination of lowest counting candidates in two or three runoffs. Thereby addressing the unfairness of a single runoff voting system.
 
This method modifies [[Instant-Runoff Voting|instant runoff voting]] (IRV) by adding a second and possibly a third runoff with [[later-no-harm]] safeguards for runoff winners. It further modifies simple IRV by allowing the voter to mark more than one candidate at the same ranking level. These additions claim to improve on simple IRV by: more fairly counting a voter's ballothonest opinion, making this system monotonic ([[Monotonicity]]), reducing the failure rate for the [[Independence of irrelevant alternatives|Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives]] (IIA), greatly reducing or possibly eliminating [[Center-squeeze]], and making the practice of [[Favorite Betrayal]] unnecessary.
 
== Description ==
Voters rank the candidates using as many ranking levels as there are candidates, or to a limit as specified by the electing authority. Four levels is manually countable and a reasonable compromise as few voters will remember, nor be happy with, whomever their fifth and additional down ballot choices were.
 
This method begins with a first runoff. Candidates are eliminated one at a time in each runoff, with the final remaining (not-yet-eliminated) two candidates vote counts compared (effectively pairwise) to identify a winner and a runner-up. The method continues with a second runoff, in which the first runoff's runner-up is immediately withdrawn. This allows the votesThe trapped behind/under the runner-up totare benow countedcountable like those of other voters whose first preference has lost. This identifies a second runoff winner. If the first winner repeats as the second winner, they are elected and the election is over.
 
If no one is elected, a pairwise comparison is made of the first and second winners. The first winner will be elected if the second winner can do no better than a tie. Failing that, a third runoff occurs in which the first runoff's winner is immediately withdrawn. This allows theThe votes previously trapped behind/under the first winner in both runoffs toare benow countedcountable like those of other voters whose first preference has lost. This identifies a third winner. If the second winner repeats as the third winner, they are elected and the election is over.
 
If no one has yet been elected, a pairwise comparison is made of the second and third winners. The second winner will be elected if the third winner can do no better than a tie. Failing all of the above, the third winner is compared pairwise with the first winner. The third winner will be elected if they beat the first winner. Finally, with no one yet elected, the result is a paradoxical tie between the three runoff winners. One of them will be elected by "random draw".
 
== Tie breakers ==
139

edits