Explore 1.5M+ audiobooks & ebooks free for days

From $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

Score Then Automatic Runoff Voting: Enhancing Electoral Fairness with Hybrid Voting Systems
Score Then Automatic Runoff Voting: Enhancing Electoral Fairness with Hybrid Voting Systems
Score Then Automatic Runoff Voting: Enhancing Electoral Fairness with Hybrid Voting Systems
Ebook297 pages3 hoursPolitical Science

Score Then Automatic Runoff Voting: Enhancing Electoral Fairness with Hybrid Voting Systems

Rating: 0 out of 5 stars

()

Read preview

About this ebook

Discover an innovative approach that reshapes our understanding of electoral systems. Score Then Automatic Runoff Voting explores a hybrid method combining the precision of score voting with the clarity of automatic runoffs. This book is crucial for those interested in the future of democratic representation and electoral integrity.


You'll uncover the unique aspects of this system and its potential influence on election outcomes, voter satisfaction, and democracy. Here's a brief look inside:


1: STAR Voting-How STAR voting merges score voting with automatic runoff for more accurate election results.


2: Approval Voting-Understanding approval voting and its role in candidate evaluation based on voter acceptance.


3: Score Voting-Exploring score voting fundamentals and its advantage in capturing voter preferences.


4: Condorcet Method-Identifying the most preferred candidate through pairwise comparisons using the Condorcet method.


5: Copeland's Method-Learn how Copeland's method uses pairwise victories to determine the best candidate.


6: Monotonicity Criterion-Why increasing support for a candidate shouldn't harm their chances (monotonicity criterion).


7: Bucklin Voting-Multi-round Bucklin voting to find a majority winner.


8: Ranked Pairs-Facilitating ranking based on majority preferences using ranked pairs.


9: Condorcet Winner Criterion-The importance of selecting a candidate who wins in every head-to-head match.


10: Participation Criterion-Encouraging voter turnout through the participation criterion.


11: Majority Criterion-Ensuring broad support for the winning candidate via the majority criterion.


12: Mutual Majority Criterion-Favoring candidates with cross-sectional support under the mutual majority criterion.


13: Nanson's Method-Eliminating less popular candidates to find a consensus choice using Nanson's method.


14: Condorcet Loser Criterion-Ensuring a universally losing candidate isn’t elected.


15: Reversal Symmetry-Exploring fairness in electoral systems through reversal symmetry.


16: Kemeny–Young Method-Aggregating preferences for candidate ranking via the Kemeny–Young method.


17: Later-No-Harm Criterion-Ensuring lower rankings don’t harm candidates' chances (later-no-harm criterion).


18: Instant-Runoff Voting-Eliminating least popular candidates in rounds until a majority winner emerges.


19: Majority Judgment-Evaluating candidates through graded assessments using majority judgment.


20: Ranked Voting-How ranked voting systems impact voter choice and representation.


21: Comparison of Electoral Systems-Comparing strengths and weaknesses of various systems in different contexts.


Score Then Automatic Runoff Voting offers a deep dive into the future of electoral innovation. By engaging with this guide, you'll enhance your understanding of voting methods and their democratic implications. Stay ahead in the evolving world of elections.

LanguageEnglish
PublisherOne Billion Knowledgeable
Release dateSep 5, 2024
Score Then Automatic Runoff Voting: Enhancing Electoral Fairness with Hybrid Voting Systems

Other titles in Score Then Automatic Runoff Voting Series (30)

View More

Read more from Fouad Sabry

Related to Score Then Automatic Runoff Voting

Titles in the series (100)

View More

Related ebooks

Geopolitics For You

View More

Reviews for Score Then Automatic Runoff Voting

Rating: 0 out of 5 stars
0 ratings

0 ratings0 reviews

What did you think?

Tap to rate

Review must be at least 10 words

    Book preview

    Score Then Automatic Runoff Voting - Fouad Sabry

    Chapter 1: STAR voting

    STAR voting is a voting mechanism that is used for elections that only involve one seat. The term Score then Automatic Runoff is a reference to the fact that this system is a combination of score voting, which is used to select two finalists with the highest total scores, followed by a automatic runoff, in which the finalist who is preferred on more ballots is chosen to win. The name is an allusion to star ratings. Cardinal voting is a form of election method that is sometimes used.

    A score ballot, also known as a ratings ballot, is provided to voters under the STAR system. On this ballot, each voter assigns a number between 0 and 5 to each candidate under consideration, with 0 indicating worst and 5 indicating best.

    Following this, the scores of each contender are added together, and the two individuals who received the highest scores are chosen to be the finalists.

    During the automatic runoff stage, the winner is determined by selecting the finalist who received a higher score on a greater number of ballots than the other candidates.

    The idea was previously referred to as score runoff voting (SRV) when it was first introduced by Mark Frohnmayer when it was first proposed in October of 2014. In order to lessen the influence of strategic incentives in regular score voting, such as bullet voting and tactical maximizing, the runoff step was implemented. It is the intention of STAR to function as a combination of instant runoff voting where candidates are ranked and rated score voting.

    STAR voting was initially implemented in Oregon, with chapters located in Eugene, Portland, Salem, Astoria, and Ashland. This was the first movement to use STAR voting. Over sixteen thousand signatures were presented by supporters of a ballot proposal in Lane County, Oregon, in July of 2018. This enabled Measure 20-290 to be placed on the ballot for the election in November of 2018.  Despite the fact that 47.6% of people voted in favor of this ballot initiative, 52.4% of voters voted against it by casting their ballots.

    The Multnomah County Democratic Party decided to use STAR for all of its internal elections during the year 2019.

    In addition to an initiative in Troutdale, Oregon, and a second attempt at Lane County, there was an attempt made to put a ballot initiative on the ballot for the city of Eugene in the year 2020. The majority of voters in the county in 2018 had demonstrated their support for the county proposal. Lucy Vinis, the Mayor of Eugene, cast the deciding vote against the referral on July 27, 2020, after the Eugene City Council reached a deadlock of 4-4 on a vote to refer a measure that would allow STAR voting to be used in city elections to the ballot for November 2020. This meant that no ballot measure would be held in Eugene in 2020.

    During the primary election for the year 2020, the Independent Party of Oregon utilized the STAR voting system. STAR Voting was utilized by the Democratic Party of Oregon in order to conduct elections for delegates participating in the 2020 Democratic convention. The Libertarian Party of Oregon gave their approval to the use of STAR voting for its internal elections beginning in 2023 in the year 2022 through 2023.

    Imagine that the state of Tennessee is holding a vote to determine where the state's capital should be located. There are four large cities that are home to the majority of the people. Every voter desires that the nation's capital be located as close to them as is convenient. Among the choices are:

    In each region, the preferences of the voters are as follows:

    Let's say that one hundred voters each elected to give each city a score ranging from 0 to 5 stars. This would mean that the choice that they loved the most would receive 5 stars, while the choice that they liked the least would receive 0 stars. The ratings for the selections that were in the middle would be proportionate to the distance between them.

    The two cities that are now in the lead are Chattanooga and Nashville. Of the two, Nashville is preferred by 68% (42+26) of voters, while only 32% (15+17) of voters are in favor of the other option. Therefore, Nashville, which is the capital in real life, also wins in the

    Enjoying the preview?
    Page 1 of 1