Simple ranked voting is very simple. Voters cast votes on a ranked place ballot in accordance with their intentions: =/ 1st > 2nd > 3rd > 4th… /=. Only one candidate (or no candidate at all) may be chosen for each place. The 1st place candidate is granted 10 votes, 2nd place gets 9 votes, 3rd place gets 8 votes, and so on. The 10th place candidate is granted 1 vote, and any further places are granted no votes. All of the votes are added up, and the candidate who was granted the most votes is the winner.
Absolutely nothing is done to interfere with the voter’s usage of the hedge strategy in order to thwart the double bind dilemma, which is the cause of “lesser evil” candidates becoming elected even when preferred “paladin” candidates are potentially available.
Using the hedge strategy, voters can grant 1st place (cast 10 votes) to a paladin – perhaps a “Ralph Nader”, while granting 2nd place to some lesser evil candidate, thus substantially contributing to the avoidance of “greater evil” winners. This process will eventually disrupt the two-party lock-in which is responsible for the many ongoing political disasters.
Note that this method is purely summative at the “precinct level.”
Of course there is the by-now well-known “ranked choice”/“instant runoff” (“RCV”/“IRV”) tabulation method, which frustrates usage of the hedge strategy and thus ensures the continuation of the disastrous two-party lock-in. (This demonstrates that ballot design and tabulation method are two completely distinct subject areas.) This tabulation method could be termed “summative-eliminative”.
Note that “RCV”/“IRV”, “choose-one”, “approval,” “STAR,” and so on, methods do nothing to actually assist rectitudinous (so-called “honest”) voters, since they will always do their best to express their actual preferences (they are, at bottom, protest voters). Such methods can only frustrate strategic hedge voting, and thus automatically perpetuate the two-party lock-in disaster.
Presumably, the voters have the right to continue to be frustrated, so therefor, at each election, they should be enabled to cast a separate vote to determine whether the simple ranked, or alternatively, the “RCV”/“IRV” tabulation method should be applied to their ballots.