Difference between revisions of "3-2-1 voting"

From Electowiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Examples)
(Examples)
Line 40: Line 40:
 
| Tigers
 
| Tigers
 
|}
 
|}
 +
 +
The votes above lead to the following outcome:
  
 
{| class="wikitable"
 
{| class="wikitable"
Line 72: Line 74:
 
| bgcolor="#fcc"|45
 
| bgcolor="#fcc"|45
 
|}
 
|}
 +
 +
The semifinalists are Tigers, Knights, and Bulldogs. The finalists are Tigers and Bulldogs. The winner is Tigers.

Revision as of 08:08, 15 December 2016

In 3-2-1 voting, voters may rate each candidate “Good”, “Acceptable”, or “Rejected”. It has three steps:

  • Find 3 Semifinalists: the candidates with the most “good” ratings. (If this is a partisan election, no two semifinalists may come from the same party).
  • Find 2 Finalists: the semifinalists with the fewest rejections.
  • Find 1 winner: the finalist who is rated above the other on more ballots.

Examples

Imagine an election for a high school mascot, in which the options are “Bulldogs”, “Lions”, “Tigers”, or “Knights”, with the following votes:

Faction size "Good" candidates "Acceptable" candidates "Bad" candidates
39 Bulldogs, Knights Lions, Tigers
1 Bulldogs Knights, Lions, Tigers
35 Tigers Lions Bulldogs, Knights
20 Lions Tigers Bulldogs, Knights
5 Knights, Lions Bulldogs Tigers

The votes above lead to the following outcome:

Candidate "Good" ratings "Acceptable" ratings "Bad" ratings 2-way score
Lions 25 35 40
Tigers 35 20 45 55
Knights 44 0 56
Bulldogs 40 5 55 45

The semifinalists are Tigers, Knights, and Bulldogs. The finalists are Tigers and Bulldogs. The winner is Tigers.