Summary Results
16 votes
The question was:
Condorcet voting, in which ranked ballots are used to choose a universal pairwise winner if one exists, is one voting reform proposal which is generally agreed to be superior to Plurality/FPTP. However, perhaps it is not best promoted by naming it after a 19th-century French marquis. Which name do you think would be best for promoting Condorcet with the general US public?
(Note: there are of course many distinct Condorcet-compliant systems. However, until there are more than 3 serious candidates, differences are minor or nonexistent. Therefore, for the purposes of this poll, we are considering the arguably-simplest and oldest Condorcet proposal, "minimax". Please vote accordingly. You are free to use the results of this poll to name another Condorcet system, but there are no guarantees as to appropriateness.)
Rate the following choices. "10" for a most preferred choice, "-10" for a least preferred choice, and so on. Leaving some choices blank is OK, and indicates no preference for or against.
| System | Winner(s) |
|---|
| Instant Runoff Normalized Ratings | Condorcet Voting |
| Virtual Round Robin | Round Robin Voting (RRV) -- nice contrast with IRV. Could be Instant Round Robin Voting (IRRV) |
| Raw Rating Summation | Round Robin Voting (RRV) -- nice contrast with IRV. Could be Instant Round Robin Voting (IRRV) |
| Approval | Condorcet Voting |
| Instant Runoff Voting | Pairwise Champion Voting (PCV) |
The question was:
Bucklin voting is a system in which you may rate each candidate into one of various ranking categories. If any candidates have a majority of top rankings across all ballots, the one with the most wins. Otherwise, first- and second- place rankings are considered, then first-, second-, and third-place, until some candidate(s) have a majority.
As with Condorcet, there are several variations within Bucklin voting. This poll applies to the simplest such variation, with equalities allowed and only 2+1 ranking levels: Preferred, Approved, and Unapproved. If no candidates have a majority of Preferred and more than one have a majority of Approved, the one with the most Preferred wins. If no candidates have a majority of Approved, the one with most Approved wins. Also, this poll is for branding inside the USA. Again, if another Bucklin variation is chosen, or for outside the USA, you may use these poll results, but do so advisedly.
Winner: Majority Choice Approval (MCA)
The question was:
Range Voting is a system in which voters rate candidates - say, from 0 to 99. Scores are summed and the highest total score wins. This has been shown to give the best results for any given fixed level of voter strategy, although some say that some other systems could lead to less strategy and thus better results. Still, it's widely agreed to be far superior to Plurality/FPTP. Which is the best name for promoting Range voting?
| System | Winner(s) |
|---|
| Instant Runoff Normalized Ratings | Range Voting (RV) |
| Virtual Round Robin | Score Voting (SV) |
| Raw Rating Summation | Range Voting (RV) |
| Approval | Range Voting (RV) |
| Instant Runoff Voting | Score Voting (SV) |
The question was:
IRV is a voting system in which the lowest vote-getter is eliminated and non-exhausted votes are redistributed until some candidate has a majority of the remaining ballots. I believe that it is a worthwhile improvement/reform to FPTP/Plurality. What is the best name for promoting IRV?
Winner: Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)
The question was:
How do you feel about the single-winner systems above? Please confine your opinion to this section of the poll; if you don't like one of the systems above, leave it blank rather than making disruptive votes or write-ins.
This poll section is for informational interest only. Unlike the above sections, which are intended to be of direct use for activism, it's just to see the makeup of the voters. In other words, if you vote in any section of this poll, I'd ask you to take the poll results of the above sections into account when referring to the relevant systems; but you make no commitment at all to respect or abide by the "winner" of this poll section.
| System | Winner(s) |
|---|
| Instant Runoff Normalized Ratings | Range Voting |
| Virtual Round Robin | Range Voting |
| Raw Rating Summation | Range Voting |
| Approval | Range Voting, Your favorite variety of Condorcet voting, Approval Voting |
| Instant Runoff Voting | Range Voting |
Detailed Results
The question was:
Condorcet voting, in which ranked ballots are used to choose a universal pairwise winner if one exists, is one voting reform proposal which is generally agreed to be superior to Plurality/FPTP. However, perhaps it is not best promoted by naming it after a 19th-century French marquis. Which name do you think would be best for promoting Condorcet with the general US public?
(Note: there are of course many distinct Condorcet-compliant systems. However, until there are more than 3 serious candidates, differences are minor or nonexistent. Therefore, for the purposes of this poll, we are considering the arguably-simplest and oldest Condorcet proposal, "minimax". Please vote accordingly. You are free to use the results of this poll to name another Condorcet system, but there are no guarantees as to appropriateness.)
Rate the following choices. "10" for a most preferred choice, "-10" for a least preferred choice, and so on. Leaving some choices blank is OK, and indicates no preference for or against.
Histogram
| Condorcet Voting
|
|---|
| Rating | Votes |
|---|
| 10 | 2 |
| 9 | 1 |
| 8 | 1 |
| 7 | 0 |
| 6 | 0 |
| 5 | 3 |
| 4 | 2 |
| 3 | 1 |
| 2 | 0 |
| 1 | 1 |
| 0 | 0 |
| -1 | 0 |
| -2 | 0 |
| -3 | 0 |
| -4 | 0 |
| -5 | 0 |
| -6 | 0 |
| -7 | 0 |
| -8 | 0 |
| -9 | 0 |
| -10 | 3 |
| votes | 14 | | average | 2.4285714285714284 |
| | Round Robin Voting (RRV) -- nice contrast with IRV. Could be Instant Round Robin Voting (IRRV)
|
|---|
| Rating | Votes |
|---|
| 10 | 4 |
| 9 | 1 |
| 8 | 0 |
| 7 | 0 |
| 6 | 1 |
| 5 | 1 |
| 4 | 0 |
| 3 | 0 |
| 2 | 0 |
| 1 | 0 |
| 0 | 1 |
| -1 | 0 |
| -2 | 0 |
| -3 | 0 |
| -4 | 0 |
| -5 | 0 |
| -6 | 0 |
| -7 | 0 |
| -8 | 0 |
| -9 | 0 |
| -10 | 0 |
| votes | 8 | | average | 7.5 |
| | Pairwise Champion Voting (PCV)
|
|---|
| Rating | Votes |
|---|
| 10 | 5 |
| 9 | 0 |
| 8 | 1 |
| 7 | 0 |
| 6 | 0 |
| 5 | 0 |
| 4 | 0 |
| 3 | 2 |
| 2 | 0 |
| 1 | 0 |
| 0 | 1 |
| -1 | 0 |
| -2 | 0 |
| -3 | 1 |
| -4 | 0 |
| -5 | 0 |
| -6 | 0 |
| -7 | 0 |
| -8 | 0 |
| -9 | 0 |
| -10 | 2 |
| votes | 12 | | average | 3.4166666666666665 |
| | Virtual Round Robin Tournament (VRRT)
|
|---|
| Rating | Votes |
|---|
| 10 | 4 |
| 9 | 2 |
| 8 | 0 |
| 7 | 0 |
| 6 | 1 |
| 5 | 1 |
| 4 | 1 |
| 3 | 0 |
| 2 | 0 |
| 1 | 0 |
| 0 | 1 |
| -1 | 0 |
| -2 | 0 |
| -3 | 0 |
| -4 | 0 |
| -5 | 1 |
| -6 | 0 |
| -7 | 0 |
| -8 | 0 |
| -9 | 0 |
| -10 | 3 |
| votes | 14 | | average | 2.7142857142857144 |
|
| Beats-All Voting (BAV)
|
|---|
| Rating | Votes |
|---|
| 10 | 1 |
| 9 | 2 |
| 8 | 1 |
| 7 | 0 |
| 6 | 0 |
| 5 | 1 |
| 4 | 1 |
| 3 | 2 |
| 2 | 0 |
| 1 | 0 |
| 0 | 1 |
| -1 | 1 |
| -2 | 0 |
| -3 | 1 |
| -4 | 0 |
| -5 | 0 |
| -6 | 0 |
| -7 | 0 |
| -8 | 0 |
| -9 | 0 |
| -10 | 2 |
| votes | 13 | | average | 2.076923076923077 |
| | Head to head voting
|
|---|
| Rating | Votes |
|---|
| 10 | 1 |
| 9 | 0 |
| 8 | 2 |
| 7 | 0 |
| 6 | 0 |
| 5 | 0 |
| 4 | 0 |
| 3 | 1 |
| 2 | 0 |
| 1 | 1 |
| 0 | 0 |
| -1 | 0 |
| -2 | 0 |
| -3 | 0 |
| -4 | 0 |
| -5 | 0 |
| -6 | 0 |
| -7 | 0 |
| -8 | 0 |
| -9 | 0 |
| -10 | 2 |
| votes | 7 | | average | 1.4285714285714286 |
| | Virtual One-on-one Tournament Election (VOTE)
|
|---|
| Rating | Votes |
|---|
| 10 | 0 |
| 9 | 1 |
| 8 | 1 |
| 7 | 1 |
| 6 | 2 |
| 5 | 0 |
| 4 | 1 |
| 3 | 0 |
| 2 | 0 |
| 1 | 0 |
| 0 | 1 |
| -1 | 0 |
| -2 | 1 |
| -3 | 1 |
| -4 | 0 |
| -5 | 0 |
| -6 | 0 |
| -7 | 0 |
| -8 | 0 |
| -9 | 0 |
| -10 | 4 |
| votes | 13 | | average | -0.38461538461538464 |
| | Ranked Pairwise Voting (RPV) might be okay, too
|
|---|
| Rating | Votes |
|---|
| 10 | 0 |
| 9 | 0 |
| 8 | 2 |
| 7 | 0 |
| 6 | 0 |
| 5 | 0 |
| 4 | 0 |
| 3 | 0 |
| 2 | 0 |
| 1 | 1 |
| 0 | 0 |
| -1 | 0 |
| -2 | 0 |
| -3 | 0 |
| -4 | 0 |
| -5 | 0 |
| -6 | 0 |
| -7 | 0 |
| -8 | 0 |
| -9 | 0 |
| -10 | 1 |
| votes | 4 | | average | 1.75 |
|
| Round Robin Voting
|
|---|
| Rating | Votes |
|---|
| 10 | 0 |
| 9 | 0 |
| 8 | 1 |
| 7 | 0 |
| 6 | 0 |
| 5 | 0 |
| 4 | 0 |
| 3 | 0 |
| 2 | 0 |
| 1 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 |
| -1 | 0 |
| -2 | 0 |
| -3 | 0 |
| -4 | 0 |
| -5 | 0 |
| -6 | 0 |
| -7 | 0 |
| -8 | 0 |
| -9 | 0 |
| -10 | 0 |
| votes | 1 | | average | 8.0 |
| | [We should always promote a concrete Condorcet method, rather than promoting Condorcet methods in general.]
|
|---|
| Rating | Votes |
|---|
| 10 | 1 |
| 9 | 0 |
| 8 | 0 |
| 7 | 0 |
| 6 | 0 |
| 5 | 0 |
| 4 | 0 |
| 3 | 0 |
| 2 | 0 |
| 1 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 |
| -1 | 0 |
| -2 | 0 |
| -3 | 0 |
| -4 | 0 |
| -5 | 0 |
| -6 | 0 |
| -7 | 0 |
| -8 | 0 |
| -9 | 0 |
| -10 | 0 |
| votes | 1 | | average | 10.0 |
| | Full Ranked Choice (FRC)
|
|---|
| Rating | Votes |
|---|
| 10 | 2 |
| 9 | 0 |
| 8 | 2 |
| 7 | 0 |
| 6 | 1 |
| 5 | 1 |
| 4 | 0 |
| 3 | 0 |
| 2 | 0 |
| 1 | 0 |
| 0 | 1 |
| -1 | 0 |
| -2 | 0 |
| -3 | 1 |
| -4 | 1 |
| -5 | 0 |
| -6 | 0 |
| -7 | 1 |
| -8 | 0 |
| -9 | 0 |
| -10 | 3 |
| votes | 13 | | average | 0.23076923076923078 |
| | True Majority Choice
|
|---|
| Rating | Votes |
|---|
| 10 | 1 |
| 9 | 0 |
| 8 | 0 |
| 7 | 0 |
| 6 | 0 |
| 5 | 0 |
| 4 | 0 |
| 3 | 0 |
| 2 | 0 |
| 1 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 |
| -1 | 0 |
| -2 | 0 |
| -3 | 0 |
| -4 | 0 |
| -5 | 0 |
| -6 | 0 |
| -7 | 0 |
| -8 | 0 |
| -9 | 0 |
| -10 | 1 |
| votes | 2 | | average | 0.0 |
|
| Preference Playoff Voting (PPV)
|
|---|
| Rating | Votes |
|---|
| 10 | 0 |
| 9 | 0 |
| 8 | 1 |
| 7 | 0 |
| 6 | 0 |
| 5 | 0 |
| 4 | 2 |
| 3 | 0 |
| 2 | 2 |
| 1 | 1 |
| 0 | 2 |
| -1 | 1 |
| -2 | 0 |
| -3 | 0 |
| -4 | 0 |
| -5 | 0 |
| -6 | 0 |
| -7 | 0 |
| -8 | 0 |
| -9 | 0 |
| -10 | 4 |
| votes | 13 | | average | -1.5384615384615385 |
| | True Ranked Choice (TRC)
|
|---|
| Rating | Votes |
|---|
| 10 | 2 |
| 9 | 1 |
| 8 | 1 |
| 7 | 0 |
| 6 | 0 |
| 5 | 0 |
| 4 | 0 |
| 3 | 0 |
| 2 | 0 |
| 1 | 1 |
| 0 | 1 |
| -1 | 0 |
| -2 | 0 |
| -3 | 1 |
| -4 | 0 |
| -5 | 2 |
| -6 | 0 |
| -7 | 1 |
| -8 | 0 |
| -9 | 0 |
| -10 | 2 |
| votes | 12 | | average | -0.16666666666666666 |
| | Victory Square Voting (VS. voting, pronounced "versus voting".)
|
|---|
| Rating | Votes |
|---|
| 10 | 0 |
| 9 | 0 |
| 8 | 0 |
| 7 | 1 |
| 6 | 1 |
| 5 | 1 |
| 4 | 0 |
| 3 | 0 |
| 2 | 0 |
| 1 | 1 |
| 0 | 0 |
| -1 | 0 |
| -2 | 0 |
| -3 | 0 |
| -4 | 0 |
| -5 | 1 |
| -6 | 0 |
| -7 | 0 |
| -8 | 0 |
| -9 | 0 |
| -10 | 5 |
| votes | 10 | | average | -3.6 |
| | Minimax
|
|---|
| Rating | Votes |
|---|
| 10 | 1 |
| 9 | 0 |
| 8 | 0 |
| 7 | 0 |
| 6 | 0 |
| 5 | 0 |
| 4 | 0 |
| 3 | 0 |
| 2 | 0 |
| 1 | 1 |
| 0 | 1 |
| -1 | 0 |
| -2 | 2 |
| -3 | 0 |
| -4 | 1 |
| -5 | 0 |
| -6 | 0 |
| -7 | 0 |
| -8 | 0 |
| -9 | 0 |
| -10 | 6 |
| votes | 12 | | average | -4.75 |
|
| Best Runoff-Winner Voting (BRWV)
|
|---|
| Rating | Votes |
|---|
| 10 | 0 |
| 9 | 0 |
| 8 | 0 |
| 7 | 0 |
| 6 | 1 |
| 5 | 0 |
| 4 | 1 |
| 3 | 1 |
| 2 | 0 |
| 1 | 1 |
| 0 | 0 |
| -1 | 0 |
| -2 | 1 |
| -3 | 1 |
| -4 | 0 |
| -5 | 1 |
| -6 | 0 |
| -7 | 0 |
| -8 | 0 |
| -9 | 0 |
| -10 | 6 |
| votes | 13 | | average | -4.3076923076923075 |
|
Instant Runoff Normalized Ratings
| Name | IRNR Rating |
|---|
| Condorcet Voting | 6.23 |
| Round Robin Voting (RRV) -- nice contrast with IRV. Could be Instant Round Robin Voting (IRRV) | 5.69 |
| Pairwise Champion Voting (PCV) | 3.25 |
| Virtual Round Robin Tournament (VRRT) | 2.80 |
| Beats-All Voting (BAV) | 2.14 |
| Head to head voting | 0.93 |
| Virtual One-on-one Tournament Election (VOTE) | 0.62 |
| Ranked Pairwise Voting (RPV) might be okay, too | 0.58 |
| Round Robin Voting | 0.41 |
| [We should always promote a concrete Condorcet method, rather than promoting Condorcet methods in general.] | 0.38 |
| Full Ranked Choice (FRC) | 0.33 |
| True Majority Choice | 0.00 |
| Preference Playoff Voting (PPV) | -0.23 |
| True Ranked Choice (TRC) | -0.26 |
| Victory Square Voting (VS. voting, pronounced "versus voting".) | -0.91 |
| Minimax | -1.27 |
| Best Runoff-Winner Voting (BRWV) | -1.89 |
Winner: Condorcet Voting
Virtual Round Robin
| (0) | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) | (9) | (10) | (11) | (12) | (13) | (14) | (15) | (16) |
| (0) Round Robin Voting (RRV) -- nice contrast with IRV. Could be Instant Round Robin Voting (IRRV) | | 8 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 8 | 10 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 8 | 10 | 12 | 13 |
| (1) Pairwise Champion Voting (PCV) | 6 | | 6 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 8 | 5 | 8 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 9 |
| (2) Beats-All Voting (BAV) | 7 | 4 | | 4 | 6 | 5 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 7 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 |
| (3) Condorcet Voting | 6 | 6 | 6 | | 5 | 9 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 10 | 10 | 11 | 9 | 11 | 8 | 9 | 11 |
| (4) Virtual Round Robin Tournament (VRRT) | 6 | 5 | 6 | 7 | | 8 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 9 | 9 | 10 | 7 | 9 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| (5) Head to head voting | 5 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 5 | | 5 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| (6) Ranked Pairwise Voting (RPV) might be okay, too | 1 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 5 | 4 | | 6 | 6 | 7 | 2 | 3 | 7 | 4 | 8 | 9 | 9 |
| (7) Full Ranked Choice (FRC) | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 5 | | 5 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 8 |
| (8) Virtual One-on-one Tournament Election (VOTE) | 6 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 5 | | 5 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 8 | 7 |
| (9) Preference Playoff Voting (PPV) | 5 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 5 | | 7 | 8 | 6 | 8 | 6 | 8 | 7 |
| (10) Round Robin Voting | 1 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 7 | 6 | | 1 | 6 | 2 | 7 | 9 | 9 |
| (11) [We should always promote a concrete Condorcet method, rather than promoting Condorcet methods in general.] | 1 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 1 | | 6 | 1 | 6 | 9 | 9 |
| (12) True Ranked Choice (TRC) | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 6 | | 5 | 5 | 7 | 7 |
| (13) True Majority Choice | 0 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 5 | | 5 | 8 | 8 |
| (14) Victory Square Voting (VS. voting, pronounced "versus voting".) | 3 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 4 | | 5 | 4 |
| (15) Minimax | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 2 | | 5 |
| (16) Best Runoff-Winner Voting (BRWV) | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | |
| Round Robin Voting (RRV) -- nice contrast with IRV. Could be Instant Round Robin Voting (IRRV) | 0 |
| Pairwise Champion Voting (PCV) | -1 |
| Beats-All Voting (BAV) | -2 |
| Condorcet Voting | -2 |
| Virtual Round Robin Tournament (VRRT) | -2 |
| Head to head voting | -5 |
| Ranked Pairwise Voting (RPV) might be okay, too | -6 |
| Full Ranked Choice (FRC) | -6 |
| Virtual One-on-one Tournament Election (VOTE) | -7 |
| Preference Playoff Voting (PPV) | -8 |
| Round Robin Voting | -8 |
| [We should always promote a concrete Condorcet method, rather than promoting Condorcet methods in general.] | -10 |
| True Ranked Choice (TRC) | -11 |
| True Majority Choice | -11 |
| Victory Square Voting (VS. voting, pronounced "versus voting".) | -13 |
| Minimax | -15 |
| Best Runoff-Winner Voting (BRWV) | -16 |
Winner: Round Robin Voting (RRV) -- nice contrast with IRV. Could be Instant Round Robin Voting (IRRV)
Raw Rating Summation
| Name | Raw Rating Summation |
|---|
| Round Robin Voting (RRV) -- nice contrast with IRV. Could be Instant Round Robin Voting (IRRV) | 60.00 |
| Pairwise Champion Voting (PCV) | 41.00 |
| Virtual Round Robin Tournament (VRRT) | 38.00 |
| Condorcet Voting | 34.00 |
| Beats-All Voting (BAV) | 27.00 |
| Head to head voting | 10.00 |
| [We should always promote a concrete Condorcet method, rather than promoting Condorcet methods in general.] | 10.00 |
| Round Robin Voting | 8.00 |
| Ranked Pairwise Voting (RPV) might be okay, too | 7.00 |
| Full Ranked Choice (FRC) | 3.00 |
| True Majority Choice | 0.00 |
| True Ranked Choice (TRC) | -2.00 |
| Virtual One-on-one Tournament Election (VOTE) | -5.00 |
| Preference Playoff Voting (PPV) | -20.00 |
| Victory Square Voting (VS. voting, pronounced "versus voting".) | -36.00 |
| Best Runoff-Winner Voting (BRWV) | -56.00 |
| Minimax | -57.00 |
Winner: Round Robin Voting (RRV) -- nice contrast with IRV. Could be Instant Round Robin Voting (IRRV)
Approval
| Name | Approval Votes |
|---|
| Condorcet Voting | 11.0 |
| Virtual Round Robin Tournament (VRRT) | 9.0 |
| Pairwise Champion Voting (PCV) | 8.0 |
| Beats-All Voting (BAV) | 8.0 |
| Round Robin Voting (RRV) -- nice contrast with IRV. Could be Instant Round Robin Voting (IRRV) | 7.0 |
| Virtual One-on-one Tournament Election (VOTE) | 6.0 |
| Full Ranked Choice (FRC) | 6.0 |
| Preference Playoff Voting (PPV) | 6.0 |
| True Ranked Choice (TRC) | 5.0 |
| Head to head voting | 5.0 |
| Best Runoff-Winner Voting (BRWV) | 4.0 |
| Victory Square Voting (VS. voting, pronounced "versus voting".) | 4.0 |
| Ranked Pairwise Voting (RPV) might be okay, too | 3.0 |
| Minimax | 2.0 |
| [We should always promote a concrete Condorcet method, rather than promoting Condorcet methods in general.] | 1.0 |
| True Majority Choice | 1.0 |
| Round Robin Voting | 1.0 |
Winner: Condorcet Voting
Instant Runoff Voting
| Name | Best IRV Count |
|---|
| Pairwise Champion Voting (PCV) | 8.5 |
| Round Robin Voting (RRV) -- nice contrast with IRV. Could be Instant Round Robin Voting (IRRV) | 6.5 |
| Full Ranked Choice (FRC) | 3.3333333 |
| Virtual Round Robin Tournament (VRRT) | 3.0833333 |
| Condorcet Voting | 2.0833333 |
| Head to head voting | 1.5333333 |
| Minimax | 1.1666666 |
| [We should always promote a concrete Condorcet method, rather than promoting Condorcet methods in general.] | 1 |
| True Ranked Choice (TRC) | 0.7 |
| Beats-All Voting (BAV) | 0.4 |
| True Majority Choice | 0.16666667 |
| Round Robin Voting | 0.16666667 |
| Ranked Pairwise Voting (RPV) might be okay, too | 0.14285715 |
| Best Runoff-Winner Voting (BRWV) | 0 |
| Victory Square Voting (VS. voting, pronounced "versus voting".) | 0 |
| Virtual One-on-one Tournament Election (VOTE) | 0 |
| Preference Playoff Voting (PPV) | 0 |
Winner: Pairwise Champion Voting (PCV)
The question was:
Bucklin voting is a system in which you may rate each candidate into one of various ranking categories. If any candidates have a majority of top rankings across all ballots, the one with the most wins. Otherwise, first- and second- place rankings are considered, then first-, second-, and third-place, until some candidate(s) have a majority.
As with Condorcet, there are several variations within Bucklin voting. This poll applies to the simplest such variation, with equalities allowed and only 2+1 ranking levels: Preferred, Approved, and Unapproved. If no candidates have a majority of Preferred and more than one have a majority of Approved, the one with the most Preferred wins. If no candidates have a majority of Approved, the one with most Approved wins. Also, this poll is for branding inside the USA. Again, if another Bucklin variation is chosen, or for outside the USA, you may use these poll results, but do so advisedly.
Histogram
| Majority Choice Approval (MCA)
|
|---|
| Rating | Votes |
|---|
| 10 | 5 |
| 9 | 0 |
| 8 | 0 |
| 7 | 2 |
| 6 | 0 |
| 5 | 2 |
| 4 | 2 |
| 3 | 1 |
| 2 | 0 |
| 1 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 |
| -1 | 0 |
| -2 | 0 |
| -3 | 1 |
| -4 | 0 |
| -5 | 0 |
| -6 | 0 |
| -7 | 0 |
| -8 | 0 |
| -9 | 0 |
| -10 | 0 |
| votes | 13 | | average | 6.3076923076923075 |
| | Bucklin Voting
|
|---|
| Rating | Votes |
|---|
| 10 | 1 |
| 9 | 1 |
| 8 | 2 |
| 7 | 0 |
| 6 | 1 |
| 5 | 1 |
| 4 | 1 |
| 3 | 1 |
| 2 | 1 |
| 1 | 1 |
| 0 | 0 |
| -1 | 0 |
| -2 | 0 |
| -3 | 0 |
| -4 | 0 |
| -5 | 0 |
| -6 | 1 |
| -7 | 0 |
| -8 | 0 |
| -9 | 0 |
| -10 | 2 |
| votes | 13 | | average | 2.3076923076923075 |
| | Fallback Approval Voting (FAV)
|
|---|
| Rating | Votes |
|---|
| 10 | 4 |
| 9 | 0 |
| 8 | 0 |
| 7 | 0 |
| 6 | 1 |
| 5 | 1 |
| 4 | 0 |
| 3 | 1 |
| 2 | 0 |
| 1 | 1 |
| 0 | 1 |
| -1 | 0 |
| -2 | 0 |
| -3 | 1 |
| -4 | 0 |
| -5 | 0 |
| -6 | 0 |
| -7 | 0 |
| -8 | 0 |
| -9 | 0 |
| -10 | 1 |
| votes | 11 | | average | 3.8181818181818183 |
| | American Preferential Voting (APV. This name was actually used in some cases where Bucklin was implemented in the Progressive era.)
|
|---|
| Rating | Votes |
|---|
| 10 | 5 |
| 9 | 0 |
| 8 | 0 |
| 7 | 0 |
| 6 | 0 |
| 5 | 0 |
| 4 | 0 |
| 3 | 2 |
| 2 | 1 |
| 1 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 |
| -1 | 0 |
| -2 | 1 |
| -3 | 0 |
| -4 | 0 |
| -5 | 0 |
| -6 | 0 |
| -7 | 0 |
| -8 | 0 |
| -9 | 0 |
| -10 | 3 |
| votes | 12 | | average | 2.1666666666666665 |
|
| Top Majority Vote (TMV)
|
|---|
| Rating | Votes |
|---|
| 10 | 2 |
| 9 | 0 |
| 8 | 0 |
| 7 | 0 |
| 6 | 1 |
| 5 | 1 |
| 4 | 0 |
| 3 | 0 |
| 2 | 0 |
| 1 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 |
| -1 | 0 |
| -2 | 0 |
| -3 | 0 |
| -4 | 0 |
| -5 | 1 |
| -6 | 0 |
| -7 | 0 |
| -8 | 0 |
| -9 | 0 |
| -10 | 2 |
| votes | 7 | | average | 0.8571428571428571 |
| | Expanding Approval Choice (EAC)
|
|---|
| Rating | Votes |
|---|
| 10 | 1 |
| 9 | 0 |
| 8 | 0 |
| 7 | 1 |
| 6 | 0 |
| 5 | 3 |
| 4 | 0 |
| 3 | 1 |
| 2 | 0 |
| 1 | 0 |
| 0 | 2 |
| -1 | 0 |
| -2 | 0 |
| -3 | 0 |
| -4 | 1 |
| -5 | 0 |
| -6 | 0 |
| -7 | 0 |
| -8 | 0 |
| -9 | 0 |
| -10 | 3 |
| votes | 12 | | average | 0.08333333333333333 |
| | Approved/Preferred Voting (APV; same acronym as above)
|
|---|
| Rating | Votes |
|---|
| 10 | 1 |
| 9 | 0 |
| 8 | 0 |
| 7 | 1 |
| 6 | 0 |
| 5 | 1 |
| 4 | 0 |
| 3 | 0 |
| 2 | 1 |
| 1 | 0 |
| 0 | 2 |
| -1 | 0 |
| -2 | 0 |
| -3 | 0 |
| -4 | 0 |
| -5 | 0 |
| -6 | 0 |
| -7 | 0 |
| -8 | 0 |
| -9 | 0 |
| -10 | 4 |
| votes | 10 | | average | -1.6 |
| | Approval With Compromises (AWC)
|
|---|
| Rating | Votes |
|---|
| 10 | 1 |
| 9 | 0 |
| 8 | 0 |
| 7 | 0 |
| 6 | 1 |
| 5 | 0 |
| 4 | 0 |
| 3 | 0 |
| 2 | 1 |
| 1 | 2 |
| 0 | 2 |
| -1 | 0 |
| -2 | 0 |
| -3 | 0 |
| -4 | 0 |
| -5 | 0 |
| -6 | 0 |
| -7 | 0 |
| -8 | 0 |
| -9 | 0 |
| -10 | 3 |
| votes | 10 | | average | -1.0 |
|
| No-Elimination Majority (NEM voting)
|
|---|
| Rating | Votes |
|---|
| 10 | 0 |
| 9 | 2 |
| 8 | 0 |
| 7 | 0 |
| 6 | 1 |
| 5 | 2 |
| 4 | 0 |
| 3 | 1 |
| 2 | 0 |
| 1 | 0 |
| 0 | 1 |
| -1 | 0 |
| -2 | 1 |
| -3 | 1 |
| -4 | 1 |
| -5 | 0 |
| -6 | 0 |
| -7 | 0 |
| -8 | 0 |
| -9 | 0 |
| -10 | 3 |
| votes | 13 | | average | -0.15384615384615385 |
| | Ranked Universal Majority (RUM voting)
|
|---|
| Rating | Votes |
|---|
| 10 | 1 |
| 9 | 0 |
| 8 | 0 |
| 7 | 0 |
| 6 | 0 |
| 5 | 0 |
| 4 | 1 |
| 3 | 1 |
| 2 | 0 |
| 1 | 0 |
| 0 | 1 |
| -1 | 0 |
| -2 | 1 |
| -3 | 1 |
| -4 | 0 |
| -5 | 2 |
| -6 | 0 |
| -7 | 1 |
| -8 | 0 |
| -9 | 0 |
| -10 | 3 |
| votes | 12 | | average | -2.9166666666666665 |
|
Instant Runoff Normalized Ratings
| Name | IRNR Rating |
|---|
| Majority Choice Approval (MCA) | 7.70 |
| Bucklin Voting | 4.10 |
| Fallback Approval Voting (FAV) | 3.26 |
| American Preferential Voting (APV. This name was actually used in some cases where Bucklin was implemented in the Progressive era.) | 2.67 |
| Top Majority Vote (TMV) | 1.37 |
| Expanding Approval Choice (EAC) | 0.81 |
| Approved/Preferred Voting (APV; same acronym as above) | 0.32 |
| Approval With Compromises (AWC) | 0.25 |
| No-Elimination Majority (NEM voting) | 0.19 |
| Ranked Universal Majority (RUM voting) | -1.95 |
Winner: Majority Choice Approval (MCA)
Virtual Round Robin
| (0) | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) | (9) |
| (0) Majority Choice Approval (MCA) | | 7 | 8 | 6 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 10 | 9 | 11 |
| (1) American Preferential Voting (APV. This name was actually used in some cases where Bucklin was implemented in the Progressive era.) | 5 | | 5 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| (2) Bucklin Voting | 4 | 4 | | 6 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 10 |
| (3) Fallback Approval Voting (FAV) | 2 | 4 | 6 | | 5 | 5 | 7 | 6 | 8 | 8 |
| (4) Expanding Approval Choice (EAC) | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | | 4 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 8 |
| (5) Approved/Preferred Voting (APV; same acronym as above) | 4 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 4 | | 4 | 4 | 5 | 7 |
| (6) No-Elimination Majority (NEM voting) | 4 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 5 | | 5 | 5 | 6 |
| (7) Approval With Compromises (AWC) | 3 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 5 | | 6 | 7 |
| (8) Top Majority Vote (TMV) | 3 | 6 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 7 | 3 | | 7 |
| (9) Ranked Universal Majority (RUM voting) | 0 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 | |
| Majority Choice Approval (MCA) | 0 |
| American Preferential Voting (APV. This name was actually used in some cases where Bucklin was implemented in the Progressive era.) | -1 |
| Bucklin Voting | -2 |
| Fallback Approval Voting (FAV) | -2 |
| Expanding Approval Choice (EAC) | -4 |
| Approved/Preferred Voting (APV; same acronym as above) | -4 |
| No-Elimination Majority (NEM voting) | -5 |
| Approval With Compromises (AWC) | -6 |
| Top Majority Vote (TMV) | -6 |
| Ranked Universal Majority (RUM voting) | -9 |
Winner: Majority Choice Approval (MCA)
Raw Rating Summation
| Name | Raw Rating Summation |
|---|
| Majority Choice Approval (MCA) | 82.00 |
| Fallback Approval Voting (FAV) | 42.00 |
| Bucklin Voting | 30.00 |
| American Preferential Voting (APV. This name was actually used in some cases where Bucklin was implemented in the Progressive era.) | 26.00 |
| Top Majority Vote (TMV) | 6.00 |
| Expanding Approval Choice (EAC) | 1.00 |
| No-Elimination Majority (NEM voting) | -2.00 |
| Approval With Compromises (AWC) | -10.00 |
| Approved/Preferred Voting (APV; same acronym as above) | -16.00 |
| Ranked Universal Majority (RUM voting) | -35.00 |
Winner: Majority Choice Approval (MCA)
Approval
| Name | Approval Votes |
|---|
| Majority Choice Approval (MCA) | 12.0 |
| Bucklin Voting | 10.0 |
| American Preferential Voting (APV. This name was actually used in some cases where Bucklin was implemented in the Progressive era.) | 8.0 |
| Fallback Approval Voting (FAV) | 8.0 |
| No-Elimination Majority (NEM voting) | 6.0 |
| Expanding Approval Choice (EAC) | 6.0 |
| Approval With Compromises (AWC) | 5.0 |
| Top Majority Vote (TMV) | 4.0 |
| Approved/Preferred Voting (APV; same acronym as above) | 4.0 |
| Ranked Universal Majority (RUM voting) | 3.0 |
Winner: Majority Choice Approval (MCA)
Instant Runoff Voting
| Name | Best IRV Count |
|---|
| Majority Choice Approval (MCA) | 7.5 |
| American Preferential Voting (APV. This name was actually used in some cases where Bucklin was implemented in the Progressive era.) | 5.5 |
| Bucklin Voting | 2.8333333 |
| Fallback Approval Voting (FAV) | 2.25 |
| Top Majority Vote (TMV) | 1.8333334 |
| Approved/Preferred Voting (APV; same acronym as above) | 1.5 |
| Expanding Approval Choice (EAC) | 0.5 |
| Approval With Compromises (AWC) | 0.33333334 |
| Ranked Universal Majority (RUM voting) | 0.25 |
| No-Elimination Majority (NEM voting) | 0 |
Winner: Majority Choice Approval (MCA)
The question was:
Range Voting is a system in which voters rate candidates - say, from 0 to 99. Scores are summed and the highest total score wins. This has been shown to give the best results for any given fixed level of voter strategy, although some say that some other systems could lead to less strategy and thus better results. Still, it's widely agreed to be far superior to Plurality/FPTP. Which is the best name for promoting Range voting?
Histogram
| Range Voting (RV)
|
|---|
| Rating | Votes |
|---|
| 10 | 6 |
| 9 | 0 |
| 8 | 4 |
| 7 | 0 |
| 6 | 1 |
| 5 | 0 |
| 4 | 0 |
| 3 | 0 |
| 2 | 0 |
| 1 | 1 |
| 0 | 0 |
| -1 | 0 |
| -2 | 0 |
| -3 | 0 |
| -4 | 0 |
| -5 | 0 |
| -6 | 0 |
| -7 | 0 |
| -8 | 0 |
| -9 | 0 |
| -10 | 1 |
| votes | 13 | | average | 6.846153846153846 |
| | Score Voting (SV)
|
|---|
| Rating | Votes |
|---|
| 10 | 7 |
| 9 | 1 |
| 8 | 0 |
| 7 | 1 |
| 6 | 1 |
| 5 | 0 |
| 4 | 1 |
| 3 | 0 |
| 2 | 0 |
| 1 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 |
| -1 | 0 |
| -2 | 0 |
| -3 | 0 |
| -4 | 0 |
| -5 | 0 |
| -6 | 0 |
| -7 | 0 |
| -8 | 0 |
| -9 | 0 |
| -10 | 1 |
| votes | 12 | | average | 7.166666666666667 |
| | Rating Voting
|
|---|
| Rating | Votes |
|---|
| 10 | 0 |
| 9 | 1 |
| 8 | 0 |
| 7 | 0 |
| 6 | 0 |
| 5 | 0 |
| 4 | 0 |
| 3 | 0 |
| 2 | 0 |
| 1 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 |
| -1 | 0 |
| -2 | 0 |
| -3 | 0 |
| -4 | 0 |
| -5 | 0 |
| -6 | 0 |
| -7 | 0 |
| -8 | 0 |
| -9 | 0 |
| -10 | 0 |
| votes | 1 | | average | 9.0 |
| | Rate Voting
|
|---|
| Rating | Votes |
|---|
| 10 | 0 |
| 9 | 0 |
| 8 | 1 |
| 7 | 0 |
| 6 | 0 |
| 5 | 0 |
| 4 | 0 |
| 3 | 0 |
| 2 | 0 |
| 1 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 |
| -1 | 0 |
| -2 | 0 |
| -3 | 0 |
| -4 | 0 |
| -5 | 0 |
| -6 | 0 |
| -7 | 0 |
| -8 | 0 |
| -9 | 0 |
| -10 | 0 |
| votes | 1 | | average | 8.0 |
|
| cardinal voting
|
|---|
| Rating | Votes |
|---|
| 10 | 0 |
| 9 | 0 |
| 8 | 0 |
| 7 | 0 |
| 6 | 0 |
| 5 | 0 |
| 4 | 0 |
| 3 | 2 |
| 2 | 2 |
| 1 | 1 |
| 0 | 0 |
| -1 | 0 |
| -2 | 0 |
| -3 | 0 |
| -4 | 0 |
| -5 | 0 |
| -6 | 0 |
| -7 | 0 |
| -8 | 0 |
| -9 | 0 |
| -10 | 1 |
| votes | 6 | | average | 0.16666666666666666 |
| | Instant Candidate Rating (ICR)
|
|---|
| Rating | Votes |
|---|
| 10 | 1 |
| 9 | 0 |
| 8 | 0 |
| 7 | 0 |
| 6 | 0 |
| 5 | 0 |
| 4 | 0 |
| 3 | 0 |
| 2 | 0 |
| 1 | 0 |
| 0 | 1 |
| -1 | 0 |
| -2 | 0 |
| -3 | 0 |
| -4 | 0 |
| -5 | 0 |
| -6 | 0 |
| -7 | 0 |
| -8 | 0 |
| -9 | 0 |
| -10 | 1 |
| votes | 3 | | average | 0.0 |
| | Raw Rating Summation (RRS)
|
|---|
| Rating | Votes |
|---|
| 10 | 0 |
| 9 | 0 |
| 8 | 0 |
| 7 | 0 |
| 6 | 0 |
| 5 | 0 |
| 4 | 1 |
| 3 | 0 |
| 2 | 2 |
| 1 | 0 |
| 0 | 2 |
| -1 | 0 |
| -2 | 1 |
| -3 | 0 |
| -4 | 0 |
| -5 | 0 |
| -6 | 0 |
| -7 | 0 |
| -8 | 0 |
| -9 | 1 |
| -10 | 5 |
| votes | 12 | | average | -4.416666666666667 |
|
Instant Runoff Normalized Ratings
| Name | IRNR Rating |
|---|
| Range Voting (RV) | 7.49 |
| Score Voting (SV) | 7.14 |
| Rating Voting | 0.70 |
| Rate Voting | 0.53 |
| cardinal voting | 0.27 |
| Instant Candidate Rating (ICR) | -0.07 |
| Raw Rating Summation (RRS) | -3.04 |
Winner: Range Voting (RV)
Virtual Round Robin
| (0) | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
| (0) Score Voting (SV) | | 7 | 11 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 11 |
| (1) Range Voting (RV) | 4 | | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 12 |
| (2) cardinal voting | 1 | 1 | | 5 | 5 | 5 | 8 |
| (3) Instant Candidate Rating (ICR) | 1 | 1 | 1 | | 2 | 2 | 6 |
| (4) Rating Voting | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | | 1 | 8 |
| (5) Rate Voting | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | | 8 |
| (6) Raw Rating Summation (RRS) | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | |
| Score Voting (SV) | 0 |
| Range Voting (RV) | -1 |
| cardinal voting | -2 |
| Instant Candidate Rating (ICR) | -3 |
| Rating Voting | -3 |
| Rate Voting | -4 |
| Raw Rating Summation (RRS) | -6 |
Winner: Score Voting (SV)
Raw Rating Summation
| Name | Raw Rating Summation |
|---|
| Range Voting (RV) | 89.00 |
| Score Voting (SV) | 86.00 |
| Rating Voting | 9.00 |
| Rate Voting | 8.00 |
| cardinal voting | 1.00 |
| Instant Candidate Rating (ICR) | 0.00 |
| Raw Rating Summation (RRS) | -53.00 |
Winner: Range Voting (RV)
Approval
| Name | Approval Votes |
|---|
| Range Voting (RV) | 12.0 |
| Score Voting (SV) | 11.0 |
| cardinal voting | 5.0 |
| Raw Rating Summation (RRS) | 3.0 |
| Rate Voting | 1.0 |
| Instant Candidate Rating (ICR) | 1.0 |
| Rating Voting | 1.0 |
Winner: Range Voting (RV)
Instant Runoff Voting
| Name | Best IRV Count |
|---|
| Score Voting (SV) | 8 |
| Range Voting (RV) | 5 |
| Rating Voting | 1 |
| Instant Candidate Rating (ICR) | 0.33333334 |
| Raw Rating Summation (RRS) | 0 |
| cardinal voting | 0 |
| Rate Voting | 0 |
Winner: Score Voting (SV)
The question was:
IRV is a voting system in which the lowest vote-getter is eliminated and non-exhausted votes are redistributed until some candidate has a majority of the remaining ballots. I believe that it is a worthwhile improvement/reform to FPTP/Plurality. What is the best name for promoting IRV?
Histogram
| Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)
|
|---|
| Rating | Votes |
|---|
| 10 | 10 |
| 9 | 0 |
| 8 | 1 |
| 7 | 0 |
| 6 | 0 |
| 5 | 0 |
| 4 | 0 |
| 3 | 1 |
| 2 | 0 |
| 1 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 |
| -1 | 0 |
| -2 | 0 |
| -3 | 0 |
| -4 | 0 |
| -5 | 0 |
| -6 | 0 |
| -7 | 0 |
| -8 | 0 |
| -9 | 0 |
| -10 | 1 |
| votes | 13 | | average | 7.769230769230769 |
| | Single Transferrable Vote (STV)
|
|---|
| Rating | Votes |
|---|
| 10 | 1 |
| 9 | 0 |
| 8 | 1 |
| 7 | 2 |
| 6 | 1 |
| 5 | 1 |
| 4 | 0 |
| 3 | 0 |
| 2 | 2 |
| 1 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 |
| -1 | 0 |
| -2 | 0 |
| -3 | 0 |
| -4 | 1 |
| -5 | 0 |
| -6 | 0 |
| -7 | 0 |
| -8 | 0 |
| -9 | 0 |
| -10 | 3 |
| votes | 12 | | average | 1.0833333333333333 |
| | Ignore Most Preferences Voting (IMP Voting)
|
|---|
| Rating | Votes |
|---|
| 10 | 1 |
| 9 | 0 |
| 8 | 0 |
| 7 | 1 |
| 6 | 0 |
| 5 | 0 |
| 4 | 0 |
| 3 | 1 |
| 2 | 0 |
| 1 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 |
| -1 | 0 |
| -2 | 0 |
| -3 | 1 |
| -4 | 0 |
| -5 | 0 |
| -6 | 0 |
| -7 | 0 |
| -8 | 0 |
| -9 | 0 |
| -10 | 0 |
| votes | 4 | | average | 4.25 |
| | Alternative Vote
|
|---|
| Rating | Votes |
|---|
| 10 | 0 |
| 9 | 0 |
| 8 | 0 |
| 7 | 0 |
| 6 | 1 |
| 5 | 2 |
| 4 | 1 |
| 3 | 0 |
| 2 | 0 |
| 1 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 |
| -1 | 0 |
| -2 | 0 |
| -3 | 1 |
| -4 | 0 |
| -5 | 0 |
| -6 | 0 |
| -7 | 0 |
| -8 | 0 |
| -9 | 0 |
| -10 | 2 |
| votes | 7 | | average | -0.42857142857142855 |
|
| Hare Voting
|
|---|
| Rating | Votes |
|---|
| 10 | 2 |
| 9 | 0 |
| 8 | 0 |
| 7 | 0 |
| 6 | 1 |
| 5 | 1 |
| 4 | 0 |
| 3 | 0 |
| 2 | 0 |
| 1 | 0 |
| 0 | 1 |
| -1 | 1 |
| -2 | 0 |
| -3 | 1 |
| -4 | 0 |
| -5 | 0 |
| -6 | 1 |
| -7 | 0 |
| -8 | 1 |
| -9 | 0 |
| -10 | 3 |
| votes | 12 | | average | -1.4166666666666667 |
| | Greatest Majority Voting (GMV)
|
|---|
| Rating | Votes |
|---|
| 10 | 0 |
| 9 | 0 |
| 8 | 0 |
| 7 | 0 |
| 6 | 0 |
| 5 | 1 |
| 4 | 0 |
| 3 | 0 |
| 2 | 0 |
| 1 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 |
| -1 | 0 |
| -2 | 0 |
| -3 | 2 |
| -4 | 1 |
| -5 | 2 |
| -6 | 1 |
| -7 | 0 |
| -8 | 0 |
| -9 | 1 |
| -10 | 3 |
| votes | 11 | | average | -5.454545454545454 |
|
Instant Runoff Normalized Ratings
| Name | IRNR Rating |
|---|
| Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) | 8.98 |
| Single Transferrable Vote (STV) | 1.74 |
| Ignore Most Preferences Voting (IMP Voting) | 1.18 |
| Alternative Vote | 0.71 |
| Hare Voting | -1.16 |
| Greatest Majority Voting (GMV) | -3.45 |
Winner: Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)
Virtual Round Robin
| (0) | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) |
| (0) Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) | | 10 | 11 | 11 | 10 | 12 |
| (1) Single Transferrable Vote (STV) | 1 | | 8 | 7 | 8 | 8 |
| (2) Ignore Most Preferences Voting (IMP Voting) | 2 | 4 | | 4 | 7 | 9 |
| (3) Alternative Vote | 3 | 5 | 3 | | 6 | 9 |
| (4) Hare Voting | 2 | 2 | 3 | 4 | | 7 |
| (5) Greatest Majority Voting (GMV) | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
| Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) | 0 |
| Single Transferrable Vote (STV) | -1 |
| Ignore Most Preferences Voting (IMP Voting) | -2 |
| Alternative Vote | -3 |
| Hare Voting | -4 |
| Greatest Majority Voting (GMV) | -5 |
Winner: Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)
Raw Rating Summation
| Name | Raw Rating Summation |
|---|
| Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) | 101.00 |
| Ignore Most Preferences Voting (IMP Voting) | 17.00 |
| Single Transferrable Vote (STV) | 13.00 |
| Alternative Vote | -3.00 |
| Hare Voting | -17.00 |
| Greatest Majority Voting (GMV) | -60.00 |
Winner: Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)
Approval
| Name | Approval Votes |
|---|
| Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) | 12.0 |
| Single Transferrable Vote (STV) | 8.0 |
| Alternative Vote | 4.0 |
| Hare Voting | 4.0 |
| Ignore Most Preferences Voting (IMP Voting) | 3.0 |
| Greatest Majority Voting (GMV) | 1.0 |
Winner: Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)
Instant Runoff Voting
| Name | Best IRV Count |
|---|
| Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) | 11 |
| Single Transferrable Vote (STV) | 2 |
| Hare Voting | 1.3333334 |
| Alternative Vote | 1 |
| Ignore Most Preferences Voting (IMP Voting) | 0.5 |
| Greatest Majority Voting (GMV) | 0 |
Winner: Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)
The question was:
How do you feel about the single-winner systems above? Please confine your opinion to this section of the poll; if you don't like one of the systems above, leave it blank rather than making disruptive votes or write-ins.
This poll section is for informational interest only. Unlike the above sections, which are intended to be of direct use for activism, it's just to see the makeup of the voters. In other words, if you vote in any section of this poll, I'd ask you to take the poll results of the above sections into account when referring to the relevant systems; but you make no commitment at all to respect or abide by the "winner" of this poll section.
Histogram
| Range Voting
|
|---|
| Rating | Votes |
|---|
| 10 | 7 |
| 9 | 0 |
| 8 | 2 |
| 7 | 2 |
| 6 | 0 |
| 5 | 0 |
| 4 | 0 |
| 3 | 1 |
| 2 | 0 |
| 1 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 |
| -1 | 0 |
| -2 | 0 |
| -3 | 0 |
| -4 | 0 |
| -5 | 0 |
| -6 | 0 |
| -7 | 0 |
| -8 | 0 |
| -9 | 0 |
| -10 | 0 |
| votes | 12 | | average | 8.583333333333334 |
| | Approval Voting
|
|---|
| Rating | Votes |
|---|
| 10 | 3 |
| 9 | 2 |
| 8 | 2 |
| 7 | 1 |
| 6 | 0 |
| 5 | 2 |
| 4 | 0 |
| 3 | 0 |
| 2 | 1 |
| 1 | 1 |
| 0 | 0 |
| -1 | 0 |
| -2 | 0 |
| -3 | 0 |
| -4 | 0 |
| -5 | 0 |
| -6 | 1 |
| -7 | 0 |
| -8 | 0 |
| -9 | 0 |
| -10 | 0 |
| votes | 13 | | average | 6.0 |
| | Your favorite variety of Condorcet voting
|
|---|
| Rating | Votes |
|---|
| 10 | 3 |
| 9 | 1 |
| 8 | 0 |
| 7 | 1 |
| 6 | 3 |
| 5 | 0 |
| 4 | 0 |
| 3 | 2 |
| 2 | 0 |
| 1 | 2 |
| 0 | 0 |
| -1 | 0 |
| -2 | 0 |
| -3 | 0 |
| -4 | 0 |
| -5 | 0 |
| -6 | 0 |
| -7 | 0 |
| -8 | 0 |
| -9 | 0 |
| -10 | 1 |
| votes | 13 | | average | 4.769230769230769 |
| | Your favorite variety of Bucklin voting
|
|---|
| Rating | Votes |
|---|
| 10 | 3 |
| 9 | 0 |
| 8 | 2 |
| 7 | 1 |
| 6 | 0 |
| 5 | 2 |
| 4 | 0 |
| 3 | 0 |
| 2 | 0 |
| 1 | 1 |
| 0 | 2 |
| -1 | 0 |
| -2 | 0 |
| -3 | 0 |
| -4 | 0 |
| -5 | 0 |
| -6 | 0 |
| -7 | 0 |
| -8 | 0 |
| -9 | 0 |
| -10 | 0 |
| votes | 11 | | average | 5.818181818181818 |
|
| Score DSV
|
|---|
| Rating | Votes |
|---|
| 10 | 2 |
| 9 | 1 |
| 8 | 0 |
| 7 | 0 |
| 6 | 0 |
| 5 | 1 |
| 4 | 0 |
| 3 | 0 |
| 2 | 0 |
| 1 | 0 |
| 0 | 1 |
| -1 | 0 |
| -2 | 0 |
| -3 | 0 |
| -4 | 0 |
| -5 | 0 |
| -6 | 0 |
| -7 | 0 |
| -8 | 0 |
| -9 | 0 |
| -10 | 0 |
| votes | 5 | | average | 6.8 |
| | Asset Voting
|
|---|
| Rating | Votes |
|---|
| 10 | 1 |
| 9 | 0 |
| 8 | 0 |
| 7 | 0 |
| 6 | 0 |
| 5 | 1 |
| 4 | 0 |
| 3 | 0 |
| 2 | 0 |
| 1 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 |
| -1 | 0 |
| -2 | 0 |
| -3 | 0 |
| -4 | 0 |
| -5 | 0 |
| -6 | 0 |
| -7 | 0 |
| -8 | 0 |
| -9 | 0 |
| -10 | 0 |
| votes | 2 | | average | 7.5 |
| | Instant Runoff Normalized Ratings
|
|---|
| Rating | Votes |
|---|
| 10 | 1 |
| 9 | 0 |
| 8 | 0 |
| 7 | 0 |
| 6 | 0 |
| 5 | 0 |
| 4 | 0 |
| 3 | 0 |
| 2 | 0 |
| 1 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 |
| -1 | 0 |
| -2 | 0 |
| -3 | 0 |
| -4 | 0 |
| -5 | 0 |
| -6 | 0 |
| -7 | 0 |
| -8 | 0 |
| -9 | 0 |
| -10 | 0 |
| votes | 1 | | average | 10.0 |
| | Ultimate Lottery Voting
|
|---|
| Rating | Votes |
|---|
| 10 | 1 |
| 9 | 0 |
| 8 | 0 |
| 7 | 0 |
| 6 | 0 |
| 5 | 0 |
| 4 | 0 |
| 3 | 0 |
| 2 | 0 |
| 1 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 |
| -1 | 0 |
| -2 | 0 |
| -3 | 0 |
| -4 | 0 |
| -5 | 0 |
| -6 | 0 |
| -7 | 0 |
| -8 | 0 |
| -9 | 0 |
| -10 | 0 |
| votes | 1 | | average | 10.0 |
|
| Your favorite multi-round (runoff) system (including systems with occasional runoffs)
|
|---|
| Rating | Votes |
|---|
| 10 | 1 |
| 9 | 0 |
| 8 | 1 |
| 7 | 1 |
| 6 | 0 |
| 5 | 0 |
| 4 | 0 |
| 3 | 0 |
| 2 | 1 |
| 1 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 |
| -1 | 0 |
| -2 | 0 |
| -3 | 0 |
| -4 | 1 |
| -5 | 0 |
| -6 | 0 |
| -7 | 0 |
| -8 | 0 |
| -9 | 0 |
| -10 | 3 |
| votes | 8 | | average | -0.875 |
| | I like Multi-Seat Proxy elections, but it isn't a single winner
|
|---|
| Rating | Votes |
|---|
| 10 | 0 |
| 9 | 0 |
| 8 | 0 |
| 7 | 0 |
| 6 | 0 |
| 5 | 0 |
| 4 | 0 |
| 3 | 0 |
| 2 | 0 |
| 1 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 |
| -1 | 0 |
| -2 | 0 |
| -3 | 0 |
| -4 | 0 |
| -5 | 0 |
| -6 | 0 |
| -7 | 0 |
| -8 | 0 |
| -9 | 0 |
| -10 | 1 |
| votes | 1 | | average | -10.0 |
| | Borda count
|
|---|
| Rating | Votes |
|---|
| 10 | 0 |
| 9 | 0 |
| 8 | 0 |
| 7 | 0 |
| 6 | 0 |
| 5 | 0 |
| 4 | 1 |
| 3 | 3 |
| 2 | 0 |
| 1 | 1 |
| 0 | 1 |
| -1 | 0 |
| -2 | 0 |
| -3 | 0 |
| -4 | 0 |
| -5 | 1 |
| -6 | 0 |
| -7 | 2 |
| -8 | 0 |
| -9 | 0 |
| -10 | 4 |
| votes | 13 | | average | -3.4615384615384617 |
| | Plurality/FPTP
|
|---|
| Rating | Votes |
|---|
| 10 | 0 |
| 9 | 0 |
| 8 | 0 |
| 7 | 0 |
| 6 | 0 |
| 5 | 0 |
| 4 | 0 |
| 3 | 0 |
| 2 | 0 |
| 1 | 0 |
| 0 | 1 |
| -1 | 0 |
| -2 | 0 |
| -3 | 0 |
| -4 | 1 |
| -5 | 0 |
| -6 | 0 |
| -7 | 1 |
| -8 | 3 |
| -9 | 0 |
| -10 | 5 |
| votes | 11 | | average | -7.7272727272727275 |
|
| IRV
|
|---|
| Rating | Votes |
|---|
| 10 | 0 |
| 9 | 0 |
| 8 | 0 |
| 7 | 0 |
| 6 | 0 |
| 5 | 0 |
| 4 | 0 |
| 3 | 0 |
| 2 | 0 |
| 1 | 0 |
| 0 | 1 |
| -1 | 0 |
| -2 | 2 |
| -3 | 1 |
| -4 | 0 |
| -5 | 2 |
| -6 | 0 |
| -7 | 0 |
| -8 | 2 |
| -9 | 1 |
| -10 | 4 |
| votes | 13 | | average | -6.3076923076923075 |
|
Instant Runoff Normalized Ratings
| Name | IRNR Rating |
|---|
| Range Voting | 9.08 |
| Approval Voting | 7.64 |
| Your favorite variety of Condorcet voting | 5.20 |
| Your favorite variety of Bucklin voting | 4.20 |
| Score DSV | 1.76 |
| Asset Voting | 0.80 |
| Instant Runoff Normalized Ratings | 0.70 |
| Ultimate Lottery Voting | 0.38 |
| Your favorite multi-round (runoff) system (including systems with occasional runoffs) | -0.03 |
| I like Multi-Seat Proxy elections, but it isn't a single winner | -0.38 |
| Borda count | -2.06 |
| Plurality/FPTP | -4.05 |
| IRV | -4.05 |
Winner: Range Voting
Virtual Round Robin
| (0) | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) | (9) | (10) | (11) | (12) |
| (0) Range Voting | | 7 | 9 | 5 | 8 | 11 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 11 | 12 | 12 | 13 |
| (1) Your favorite variety of Bucklin voting | 4 | | 5 | 6 | 7 | 9 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 11 | 10 | 13 | 12 |
| (2) Your favorite variety of Condorcet voting | 3 | 6 | | 4 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 12 | 12 | 12 |
| (3) Approval Voting | 3 | 5 | 8 | | 8 | 10 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 12 | 12 | 13 |
| (4) Score DSV | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | | 3 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 7 | 12 | 10 |
| (5) Asset Voting | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | | 4 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 7 | 12 | 10 |
| (6) Your favorite multi-round (runoff) system (including systems with occasional runoffs) | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 4 | | 4 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 10 | 7 |
| (7) Ultimate Lottery Voting | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | | 1 | 2 | 7 | 12 | 10 |
| (8) Instant Runoff Normalized Ratings | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1 | | 2 | 8 | 13 | 10 |
| (9) I like Multi-Seat Proxy elections, but it isn't a single winner | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | | 6 | 10 | 8 |
| (10) Borda count | 1 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 5 | 5 | | 7 | 7 |
| (11) IRV | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | | 6 |
| (12) Plurality/FPTP | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 5 | |
| Range Voting | 0 |
| Your favorite variety of Bucklin voting | -2 |
| Your favorite variety of Condorcet voting | -2 |
| Approval Voting | -2 |
| Score DSV | -4 |
| Asset Voting | -5 |
| Your favorite multi-round (runoff) system (including systems with occasional runoffs) | -6 |
| Ultimate Lottery Voting | -6 |
| Instant Runoff Normalized Ratings | -6 |
| I like Multi-Seat Proxy elections, but it isn't a single winner | -9 |
| Borda count | -10 |
| IRV | -11 |
| Plurality/FPTP | -12 |
Winner: Range Voting
Raw Rating Summation
| Name | Raw Rating Summation |
|---|
| Range Voting | 103.00 |
| Approval Voting | 78.00 |
| Your favorite variety of Bucklin voting | 64.00 |
| Your favorite variety of Condorcet voting | 62.00 |
| Score DSV | 34.00 |
| Asset Voting | 15.00 |
| Instant Runoff Normalized Ratings | 10.00 |
| Ultimate Lottery Voting | 10.00 |
| Your favorite multi-round (runoff) system (including systems with occasional runoffs) | -7.00 |
| I like Multi-Seat Proxy elections, but it isn't a single winner | -10.00 |
| Borda count | -45.00 |
| IRV | -82.00 |
| Plurality/FPTP | -85.00 |
Winner: Range Voting
Approval
| Name | Approval Votes |
|---|
| Range Voting | 12.0 |
| Your favorite variety of Condorcet voting | 12.0 |
| Approval Voting | 12.0 |
| Your favorite variety of Bucklin voting | 9.0 |
| Borda count | 5.0 |
| Your favorite multi-round (runoff) system (including systems with occasional runoffs) | 4.0 |
| Score DSV | 4.0 |
| Asset Voting | 2.0 |
| Instant Runoff Normalized Ratings | 1.0 |
| Ultimate Lottery Voting | 1.0 |
| IRV | 0.0 |
| I like Multi-Seat Proxy elections, but it isn't a single winner | 0.0 |
| Plurality/FPTP | 0.0 |
Winners: Range Voting, Your favorite variety of Condorcet voting, Approval Voting
Instant Runoff Voting
| Name | Best IRV Count |
|---|
| Range Voting | 9.5 |
| Your favorite variety of Condorcet voting | 3.5 |
| Your favorite variety of Bucklin voting | 2.8333333 |
| Approval Voting | 1.5833334 |
| I like Multi-Seat Proxy elections, but it isn't a single winner | 1 |
| Your favorite multi-round (runoff) system (including systems with occasional runoffs) | 1 |
| Instant Runoff Normalized Ratings | 0.5 |
| Score DSV | 0.45 |
| Ultimate Lottery Voting | 0.16666667 |
| Asset Voting | 0.14285715 |
| Borda count | 0 |
| Plurality/FPTP | 0 |
| IRV | 0 |
Winner: Range Voting
