Last chance to vote for your favorite voting method!

So far seven people have cast ballots for favorite single-winner voting method. ( from this topic: Please PM me to verify who you are for the new forum )

I’ll keep accepting votes for three more days via PM, since it looks like this forum is going to be around for a while longer.

These people have voted so far.
@RobBrown, @cfrank, @waugh, @Marylander, @Essenzia, @BTernaryTau, @Toby_Pereira

Remember, this vote means nothing, is unofficial in all ways, and there is no declared method to tabulate the results. However, the ballots are 0-5 scores.

I’m not going to tell you who is winning, but I can tell you it is close enough that there is currently no Condorcet winner.

I will post the ballots themselves (with the associated username).

If you still want to submit a ballot, here is the format:

Adam[3] Betty[5] Chris[5] Daisy[1] Ed[2]

(candidates that aren’t listed count as a zero)

Here are the candidates:


We submit votes by sending you a PM? These are all being used in single-winner elections? Oh I see it’s in the other thread

What are NetApproval (CAV? EAV?), STLR, DV? Can you link to a description of each?

I see you did in the other thread. But don’t worry the idea is that we hold votes like this with some regularity (also doing multiwinner systems), and people will have a chance to suggest adding methods, and to make arguments for them. Cardinal Baldwin doesn’t have its own wiki page yet, but it just got brought up recently in several threads (I was calling it “SuperSTAR” before I knew it had a name) and is basically like STAR except that sequentially eliminates rather than just using the top two, normalizing the score ballots in between.

There are a few others that I don’t know what they are, but were added to the earlier thread where we started doing this with plurality, and we voted publicly rather than via PM. (Just a Fun Idea … I don’t think any method got more than one vote) There are also three new ones (basically inspired by Cardinal Baldwin but being 100% Condorcet, which Cardinal Baldwin isn’t quite but it extremely close), but they aren’t on the ballot because I don’t think they existed when I first posted this one.


I’m curious to see these results! But wait, before you publish the results, we could try the social experiment. I suggest giving the candidates incognito random labels and introducing some random noise, then let us all look at the polls incognito, and let’s see what people think might be the reasonable winners of the election when personal bias is taken out of the picture.


Great idea, I’ll do it.

1 Like

I think if possible it would be good to see the score distributions for the incognito candidates too, or even instead of the direct polls.