Score Voting, but any candidate who gets a 0 (or isn't scored) by a majority of voters can't win (unless nobody can win)


This allows majorities to more honestly differentiate between their preferred candidates and also support consensus candidates without the fear that they will end up with no utility at all. So in situations where a majority is split between two candidates, they can show their honest preference for either without letting the minority beat both on total points.

The two situations where this rule breaks down are when 1) voters cast protest votes for unviables, raising the bar for a majority and 2) a minority honestly more intensely prefers its candidates than the majority. The first could perhaps be solved by having a dynamic plurality requirement i.e. 40% instead of >50%, and may not even be a big deal to begin with for viability and quality, and the second is probably not a very likely or harmful situation overall, and may even make regular Score less viable than this.

This idea probably doesn’t have much room to grow with Score and STAR already out there, but perhaps it could be floated around for legislative decision-making or private elections, as a way of balancing utilitarianism with respect for the majority’s wishes.

One alteration is to instead eliminate candidates who don’t receive >50% support (more than a 5/10) from a majority; this could be called the “candidates require a majority of support from a majority” version. And a further alteration, to address situations where a minority more intensely prefers its candidates, is to only trigger the rule when a majority gives at least one candidate >50% support, but these complicate the method too much to be viable.

On first look, such procedures are a step away from the simplest simple score voting. They certainly make more work for the tabulators, thus make computer voting machines more attractive. I don’t put much faith in computer simulations of voting methods, but I do work through the possibilities in my head. I will think about this for about a week, and report back…


Since this is 100% failing all the criteria that the partisan proportional representation advocates care about, why not go to single member score and get back all the local representation?

This is a variation on single-winner Score. An equivalent in PR might be that a candidate can’t win if they are not positively scored by at least a majority of a Hare Quota Droop Quota? (possibly only looking at the ballots that still have significant amounts of weight), though I doubt it’d improve things much there.

I came up with a failure case: if there are two sides bullet voting their candidate that are <50% of the population, and there’s a candidate everyone agrees is 1/5, the 1/5 candidate wins. The fixes for this take Score further away from utilitarianism and viability unfortunately.

The simplest fix is to only disqualify candidates a majority explicitly scores 0; not scoring them is not enough. But in that case, it’s unlikely the rule would ever be triggered outside of small elections or decision-making situations.