• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Democracy Chronicles

Towards better democracy everywhere.

  • AMERICAN DEMOCRACY
  • WORLD DEMOCRACY
  • POLITICAL ART
  • more
    • election technology
    • money politics
    • political dissidents
    • THIRD PARTY
      • third party central
      • green party
      • justice party
      • libertarian party
    • voting methods
  • DC INFO
    • author central
    • about
    • advertise with DC
    • contact
    • privacy policy
You are here: Home / DC Authors / A Few Words of Comparison Between Approval and Score Voting

A Few Words of Comparison Between Approval and Score Voting

January 23, 2017 by Michael Ossipoff Leave a Comment

FacebookLinkedInPinTweet
Approval and Score Voting
sassysonsy.tumblr.com

This is part two of a series analyzing the 12 best voting-systems. See the introductory article for the series here.

Suppose that a progressive voter prefers the Green Party’s Presidential candidate Jill Stein, but has been convinced that the winner always has to be the Democrat or the Republican. Then, the advantage of Approval Voting over Plurality, for hir, is that s/he can fully support Jill, while still fully supporting her perceived-necessary compromise, Hillary. But the downside is that Hillary is getting just as much from hir as Jill is. As I was saying before, your best vote in Approval is to approve all of the best candidates. But, in this case, the voter is over-compromising, and approving Hillary, whom the voter probably wouldn’t call “one of the best.”

Approval and Score Voting
Score Voting example from the Center for Election Science

I wouldn’t attribute that problem to Approval. It wouldn’t happen if that voter weren’t willing to approve someone whom she regards as less than one of the best. But it still might happen some in Approval.

But if the voting-system we used was Score Voting, with its flexible ratings, then that voter, who probably doesn’t feel good about approving Hillary, and who would definitely rather not rate Hillary as high as Jill, might with Score, rate Hillary at least a little below Jill.

That’s a distinct improvement.

What about rival parties? Say that there are 2 parties that are very similar, claiming the same position “territory”, but with a feeling of inimical rivalry. Maybe neither would be willing to approve the other. The result is an unnecessary “split-vote”.

But, if the voting system were Score, they might both be willing to rate each other below themselves, maybe considerably above bottom, maybe toward the top.

Either way, Score would soften voting-errors. Score would offer a way of voting that moderates a strategic vote that the voter doesn’t like. The voter might regard this as a compromise between the voter’s feelings about the candidates, and the strategy that s/he perceives necessary or has been told is necessary, but doesn’t really like.

So score voting offers a compromise between strategy and sincerity. It softens the harm that strategy could do, when that strategy isn’t really in the voter’s best interest.

Of course Approval is the voting-system that’s easily implementable, at no expense, and so it would probably be more practical to propose Approval. Also, an implementation of Score would have to include a choice of what the points-assignment range would be. With Approval, there’s no such choice to deal with.

There’s one obvious way to do Approval: Just re-adjust the software or equipment to not disregard or reject “overvotes”.

FacebookLinkedInPinTweet

Filed Under: DC Authors Tagged With: Election Methods, Green Party News, Third Party

Some highlighted Democracy Chronicles topics

Africa American Corruption American Local Elections American State Elections Asia Capitalism and Big Business Celebrity Politics China Democracy Charity Democracy Protests Democrats Dictatorships Education Election History Election Methods Election Security Election Transparency Europe Internet and Democracy Journalism and Free Speech Middle East Minority Voting Rights Money Politics New York City and State Elections Political Artwork Political Dissidents Political Lobbying Redistricting Republicans Russia Socialism and Labor Social Media and Democracy South America Spying and Privacy Supreme Court Third Party Voter Access Voter ID Voter Registration Voter Suppression Voter Turnout Voting Technology Women Voting Rights Worldwide Worldwide Corruption

About Michael Ossipoff

Michael Ossipoff writes for Democracy Chronicles from Miami, Florida and is one of our earliest and most prolific authors and creators. His writing covers the world of election method reform verifiable election counts and the importance of independent and third party candidates.

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

democracy chronicles newsletter

democracy around the web

  • CPJ files declaration in support of detained journalist Mario Guevara 
    Source: Committee to Protect Journalists Published on: 5 months ago
  • “Musk must face lawsuit brought by voters he convinced to sign petition in $1 million-a-day election giveaway, judge says”
    Source: Election Law Blog Published on: 5 months ago
  • “Appeals court throws out massive civil fraud penalty against President Donald Trump”
    Source: Election Law Blog Published on: 5 months ago
  • “Adams Adviser Suspended From Campaign After Giving Cash to Reporter”
    Source: Election Law Blog Published on: 5 months ago
  • “Obama applauds Newsom’s California redistricting plan as ‘responsible’ as Texas GOP pushes new maps”
    Source: Election Law Blog Published on: 5 months ago