One of the criticisms that tends to come up when you are arguing for ratings methods is that they haven’t been tested in any real-world scenarios, so it’s always good to document contrary cases. Wikipedia has usually elected its Arbitration Committee and Board of Trustees with either Approval Voting or a variant that adds a ‘Neutral’ option (which works the same way as the No Opinion option in averaged Score). (From 2008 to 2011, they switched to Copeland’s and later Schulze for Board Elections, but they have since switched back.) Most of these elections have been to fill multiple seats. Notably, the levels of support for each candidate are higher than you would expect if the voters were trying to be strategic.
How do people make such an argument when there are plenty of examples?
The United Nations currently uses Approval Voting to elect its secretary general. China’s National People’s Congress (NPC), the largest Parliament body in the world, has been elected via, essentially, Approval Voting since 1979. The Greek parliament was elected by means of Approval Voting during 1864-1926 with which they replaced their previous SMP system.
Approval voting was widely used with introducing democracy in the Soviet Union started by M.S. Gorbachev. The Catholic Popes were elected via approval voting in 1294-1621, but with revotes and extra nominations until somebody attained 2/3 supermajority approval level.
They have three options, so it’s technically Score.
You are technically correct, the best kind of correct.