Is there a name for support/(support+oppose)?


This is the voting system used in Wikimedia elections:

You have to choose “Support” “Oppose” or “Neutral” for every candidate. Winner is candidate with highest support percentage = S/(S+O)

So although the ballot is (-1, 0, +1), it’s not a 3-score system like Combined Approval Voting. It’s actually equivalent to averaged 2-score voting, with Neutral votes treated as abstentions.

(And the 2015 winners would have been different if they had used CAV rules.)


Negative score voting is known as scorn voting


Generally, I think there are probably far too many technical terms in the election methods realm.

A (-1, 0, +1) ballot is a bad idea. From my perspective it serves no useful purpose. And it seems to imply the existence of a zero vote. Some gang of malicious vandals could write in, or even formally nominate some victim, and then allot many zero votes to this victim. Worse, if a zero vote is allowed, this only provides the ballot publishers with additional powers. For example, they could even invent rules that invalidate entire ballots in cases where voters “fail” to allot any score at all to some particular candidate. Utilizing simple abstention, rather than relying upon the existence of a zero vote option, avoids such traps. The need for power to the voters, rather than to the ballot publishers is exemplified in the existence of write-in votes.

I think a good term for “support in the voting booth” would be “electoral allotment” or at least “voting booth support.” A very nice feature of score/range voting with allocations from “1” to “10” is that, for example, If one were to allot “7” votes to some candidate, we could consider that a 0.7 portion of electoral allotment was made (or, a 70% allotment was made). This is very comprehensible to everyone.

Note that with ranked choice voting, only “voting booth support” is a useful concept since “portion of electoral allotment” is presumably not a meaningful concept.

Why is the term “tactical nomination” used, since the concept referred to is virtually unrelated to actual nomination, but rather disingenuous support? I would refer to it as “duplicitous support.”


This is two-valued score voting with averaging. Warren D. Smith has been advocating averaging, but with more count of values in the Range of values permitted, than just two. My response to him has been then at least allow the voter to express an “all others” default. I think the default default should be maximum opposition. If a voter isn’t bothering to research a candidate, that candidate could be a racist.

Dr. Smith frequents!forum/electionscience and I think his opinions are usually among the most valuable in this field.


Or just have no-opinion votes not count towards the average, and give each candidate some number of artificial zero votes (thinking 2*sqrt(estimated voters) or something).


Yeah, but is there a name for it? :slight_smile:


The name is 2-valued Score Voting with NoOpinion votes.


That’s a description, not a name. I’m going to go with “No, there’s not a name for it” or someone would have mentioned it by now.