Labels for 3-2-1, P3RD, PAD…


I don’t understand why 3-2-1 and P3RD propose “good” “ok” and “bad” instead of “support” “accept” “oppose” or similar.

There’s lots of range in pools of candidates. There are probably cases where election after election, nobody thinks the candidates are plain awful, but they still have clear preferences. Say a co-op was electing board members and everyone in the community overall gets along. Nobody wants to mark anyone “bad”, but they could still “oppose” and that’s strong enough language that they would still hesitate to use it too strategically.

PAD seems to have better labeling to me.

What to make of this? Is there a reason my proposed support/oppose labeling wouldn’t be superior in every way?


Support, HalfSupport, Neutral+, Neutral-, HalfOppose, Oppose.
Half support counts as 1/2 of a support vote in the first round, and is between Support and Neutral+ in the finals. Neutral+ is considered preferred over Neutral-.


Are you proposing a higher-resolution version of 3-2-1?


It’s just because the words are nice and short, so they fit well on a ballot, and roll off the tongue when you’re describing the system. “3 most good, 2 least bad, 1 preferred by more” is easy to say.

As for NoIRV’s high-res version, it’s fine. Adding many categories in the middle that only matter in the last round is fine. I think (but am not 100% sure) that adding a single “counts as half” category at each end is also fine. I prefer 3-2-1 to make things simpler but whatever can get passed is good.