@lime said in Simple anti-chicken modifications to score:

I promise you that nobody in the election-methods mailing list is particularly positive on IRV.

Yes, I have noticed that.

Most of the support for IRV is from the Alaskan model (Top Four & Final Five) proponents and their ally Fair Vote.

Fair Vote is promoting Proportional Racked Choice Voting in the Fair Representation Act (Rep. Donald Beyer, D-VA-8).

The Fair Representation Act (FRA) calls for Ranked Proportional Voting (SVT), FairVote claims:

"It’s straightforward for voters: Rank candidates in order of choice. Voters can rank as many candidates as they want, without fear that doing so will hurt their favorite candidate’s chances. Ranking a backup choice will never hurt a voter’s favorite candidate, so voters have no reason to vote for only one candidate."

This year's version of the FRA includes provisions for states with blanket primaries.

As with previous versions, FRA protects Voting Right Act of 1965 set aside districts. Frankly I think fair voting systems, especially proportional representation, will help minorities far more than set aside districts. Set aside districts are perceived by Republicans as a perfectly legitimate excuse to gerrymander like all hell.

The FairVote FRA pages give the impression the the chief purpose of proportional representation is to get more people of color, women, LGBTQ candidates elected.

To get Proportional Representation enacted we will need support from a good number of conservatives and Republicans. We should sell voting system reforms as color blind (they are), and fair. They will help minority representation by virtue of being color blind.

The FRA is now in committee, the speaker will decide when to let it out of committee, smart money is on never.

@toby-pereira said in ABC voting and BTR-Score are the single best methods by VSE I've ever seen.:

What we really need (and which is unattainable right now for most methods) is to see what would happen in real life elections with real voters.

To test any system in real elections we need to make the claim that the “new” system is better than the current system.

That is not a high bar, as the current system is plurality voting. IRV is also a competitor.

We may not have a firm handle on how good ABC or BTR-Score are, but we can say they are better than the choices above.

I admit I feel the urge to rate and rank.

Approval asks only question, but it is a very good one. Do you approve of this candidate or not?

It does get to the heart of the matter. For that reason, I think voters will be able to live with this choice.

@toby-pereira

I admit I am desperately seeking voting systems that are appealing and accurate. So I do appreciate the help I have received on this forum. When I first decided to advocate for better voting systems I had no idea how difficult the choices would be.

I think that voters will prefer Score ballots over Approval ballots, but I could be wrong. Has anyone done any polls on this?

Is there any reason to think SPAV would be more or less proportional than SPAV + KP?

I am writing a page about the Top Four Primary model for VotersTakeCharge.us (not yet up). Voters Take Charge will advocate for proportional representation and replacing plurality voting. My problem is that I am a voting system salesperson, not an election scientist. I need help.

The Alaskan top four nonpartisan “primary” model is supported by has several organizations, including Unite America, The Institute for Political Innovation, Veterans for All Voters, Independent Voter Project, Open Primaries, and Fair Vote.

They have money, enough for ballot initiatives. This is the main reason why this topic is worthy of consideration in this forum.
There are several questions to be considered. Should I separate this into two topics as follows?

Topic 1
Alaskan Top Four Model Improvements:
What voting systems should be used for each round?
Is it a useful model? (setting aside the partisan - nonpartisan question)

Topic 2
Alaskan Top Four Model - Partisan vs nonpartisan:
iEBs - independent Egotistical Billionaires?
State run primaries?

As you likely recall, Top Four is a two-round system. Anyone can get on the Round One ballot by gathering signatures. Each voter can choose one candidate in round one, the top four meet in a Ranked Choice Vote final.

I am reluctant to call round one a primary, as parties cannot choose their candidates in round one. As a nonpartisan election, there is no mention of party nominations on the ballots in either round. Instead, each candidate’s party affiliation is listed. Thus, the round one ballot for the 2022 Alaskan race for the US Senate listed eight Republicans, three Democrats, three nonpartisans, two undeclared and one Alaskan Independent. Could this be a clone problem?

The two round concept has appeal. Everyone competes in the first round, giving third parties and unaffiliated candidates an opportunity to make their cases. Dedicated voters would narrow the general election field to four (or five) candidates.

Nonpartisan ballots harm third-parties by denying much needed visibility at a critical point. Major parties must communicate who their nominee is and persuade supporters to ignore the other members of their party who are in the race.

Who benefits? Unaffiliated candidates, chiefly ones with money. Are they trying to set up a stealth party of iEBs (independent Egotistical Billionaires)?

My key questions are what would be the best voting systems for rounds one and two? Would clones cause problems? Also interested in members’ opinions on the two round, top four (or five) concept.

More opportunities to express opinions! Should there be state-run primaries held before round one? Should we offer each party four options: open, semi-open, closed and do it yourself? Or should we demand proportional representation before we are so nice to the parties? Partisan vs nonpartisan in general?

Please feel free to express your righteous indignation. Thank you, GregW

@ex-dente-leonem

Ex dente leonem gave these instructions for ABE voting:

Rate each candidate from A to F, A being best and F being worst.

Candidates receive 1 point for each A, B, or C rating and 0 points for each D, E, or F rating.

Equal ratings are allowed. Unrated candidates are automatically rated F.

An explanation for voters:

*The points seed a tournament. The first game matches the candidates with the two lowest point totals.

In each game, the A, B, C, D, E, F ratings determine which candidate is preferred by each voter. If you gave candidate Mike a D, and candidate Tim a B, your vote would go to Tim.

The winner would face the candidate with the next lowest number of points. This is repeated until the survivor meets the candidate with the highest number of points in the final game to determine the winner.

A spoiler effect is nearly impossible with ABC voting.*

ABC is one notch more complex than BTR-Score, which is quite simple as Condorcet methods go.

Is “nearly impossible” a fair statement?

What other benefits should we highlight for the public?

Were you using Jonathan Quinn’s VSE?

Thanks for the great thread.

@wolftune

BTR-Score is easier to explain than IRV. No need to talk about transferring votes.

Rated methods are generally simple, here is may take on a few:
Score Voting Methods – Score, STAR, and BTR-Score

@cfrank said in State constitutions that require “a plurality of the votes” or the “highest,” “largest,” or “greatest” number of votes.:

If we’re going to succeed in making any technical arguments then we will have to work with clear definitions and can’t afford to be loose with interpretations.

Agreed! The "highest", "largest", or "greatest" criteria could be interpreted in differently in each state. State supreme courts tend to enforce the status quo.

This will sound weird, but could enacting legislation call for score voting, but have a provision to use approval voting if score is found unconstitutional?

I agree that Score is a great system to promote, simple and expressive.

As a voter, I think {100, 99, 90, 50, 10, 1, 0} would be useful.

However, I think most people would be more comfortable with the familiar {5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0} range.

What would be a concise explanation in favor of {100, 99, 90, 50, 10, 1, 0} ?

@k98kurz said in ABC voting and BTR-Score are the single best methods by VSE I've ever seen.:

Developing a genetic algorithm to evolve a strategy that breaks a system would be an interesting side project. When I get the spare time and energy, I'll see if I can cook one up and set up a computer to just chug away at it until I have some results.

A great idea! To determine the best voting systems, we need to find the weaknesses of each voting system. Better testing methods are key. A tool like you propose would be invaluable.

Opps – Correction

I made a mistake in an earlier post on this thread:

I stated that in a BTR-Score election with a 3-way cycle, the highest seed in the cycle would have a 50% chance of winning, and the two lower seeds would each have a 25% chance of winning.

This is incorrect. The highest seed in the cycle would always win.

Consider this BTR-Score tournament with a 3-way cycle:

Candidate A is the highest seed in the cycle.
Candidate B is the 2nd highest seed in the cycle.
Candidate C is the 3rd highest seed in the cycle.

In every such election, B and C will face off in the tournament; the winner will then face A in the deciding contest.

In a 3-way cycle, each of the candidates wins one match and loses one match to the other two candidates. The winner of the B vs C contest uses its only win to prevail; therefore, that winner has no chance of defeating A.

2 Possibilities:
A > B > C > A - B beats C then B loses to A
C > B > A > C - C beats B then C loses to A

A BTR-Score election with a Condorcet winner rewards majority.

A BTR-Score without a Condorcet winner rewards utility.

It would be possible, but extremely weird, for a BTR-Score election to have a 3-way cycle that does not include the top seed, the candidate with the highest total score.

Thank you for the plan!

Maximal Lotteries has unprecedented criterion compliance but we will need some human progress before we get the public to buy in.

The benefits of Maximal Lotteries are impressive. What would be the basic procedure to use Maximal Lotteries in a public election?

Thank you for the help!

Maximal Lotteries and BTR-Score
In the case of a BTR-Score election 3-way cycle, the probabilities of winning for each of the three candidates are set in stone. The survivor of the first N - 2 rounds (N = number of candidates) of the bottom 2 runoff tournament has a 1 in 4 chance of winning. The candidate with the second highest total score (2nd seed) also has a 1 in 4 chance. The candidate with the highest score (top seed) has a 2 in 4 chance of winning.

A Maximal Lotteries vote with a 3-way cycle should produce is more nuanced set of probabilities. Maximal Lotteries also has impressive criteria compliance. Significant improvements over BTR-Score. Unfortunately, I do not understand Maximal Lotteries enough to sell it to the public. Can you point me in the right direction?

Approval Voting
Approval voting is a great method; it asks one critical question: do you approve of this candidate are not?

I believe that BTR-Score is an easier sell because it enables more voter expression. It has more sizzle. In an Approval race you can only indicate your favorite candidate by approving that candidate only; too much like plurality. More expressive voting methods like BTR-Score provide more information about voter preferences to the public, the press, and politicians.

You might recall that I created an election reform website, VotersTakeCharges in 2024. It did not fare so well. In the spring of 2025, I tried Voters.News, not much better.
Recently, I combined election reform, including campaign finance reform (the Montana Plan to eliminate corporate election spending), with economic reforms at Voters.Army. This is more popular.

I am advocating for BTR-Score for single-winner elections, but I need some help with a few questions:

Who invented BTR-Score, and how can I contact this person?
Would BTR-Score be a good way to choose four candidates in a blanket primary?

If so, would the BTR tournament need to be run four times (removing the winner each time)?

A proportional method might be fairer, but I place a high value on simplicity, and I see a need for a diverse set of winners to advance to the general election. I am trying to provide an alternative to Top 4 primaries. A Top 4 ballot initiative lost in Colorado in November 2024.

Thank you, Greg Wasleski

Why I advocate for BTR-Score

One big reason: in August, the Denver City Council came one vote short of sending Ranked Choice Voting to the voters for City Council elections (6 votes for, 7 against). I think that BTR-Score is at least one vote better than RCV.

My Criteria for Single Winner Voting Methods:

Fairness
Reliability
No Favorite Betrayal
Compliance with state constitutions that require election winners to have the highest, greatest, largest number of votes, or a plurality of the votes.
High Voter Expression
Simplicity, Easy to Explain
Sizzle, Easy to Sell

BTR-Score is easy to explain, and the voters’ ability to rate all candidates gives it plenty of sizzle. After a quick BTR-Score explanation, you can add history and prestige with a sentence or two about Ramon Llull and the Marquis de Condorcet.

Of all the voting system criteria, Condorcet speaks most directly to fairness and reliability. A candidate who beats all other candidates one on one should win. If a “beat all” candidate loses, people will bitch, and rightfully so. In elections with no “beats all” winner, BTR-Score will elect a deserving winner, the winner of the runoff tournament, in a fair and transparent manner.

Yes, as a hybrid model, BTR-Score will fail more than a few important criteria; however, I believe it will be fair and reliable. High voter expression, simplicity, sizzle, and no favorite betrayal are critical to the adoption of a new voting method in the United States.

Concerning Utility and Majority:
Assuming a three-way cycle, the top seed of the BTR tournament will have a 50% chance of winning. The other two candidates have a 25% chance of winning as they must face each other to have a shot at the top seed. This gives the highest utility candidate an advantage, but each contest in the tournament is a two-candidate plurality vote (a majority vote if you ignore the ballots that rate the two candidates equally).

Ranked Choice Voting eliminates ties on the ballots, but it is not a true majority system because some of the ballots may be spent before the winner is determined, and the capricious way that some second-choice votes are counted and some are not.

I do not consider a plurality election with a top two runoff to be a true majority election because there are two separate sets of voters voting on separate days. Also, I do not believe in Santa Claus, although he did finish sixth in the first round of the infamous 2022 Alaskan Congressional special election (top four primary with an RCV final). BTW The winner, Mary Peltola, is running for the US Senate. It could be an extremely important race.

@toby-pereira

I greatly appreciate your work!

Is this correct?
"COWPEA is the only method that is fair and consistent, but it may be the most difficult to sell to the public."

Thank you, GregW

@cfrank

Link fixed, I got a little sloppy with the paste.

Score Voting Methods - Score, STAR, and BTR-Score

@wolftune

BTR-Score is easier to explain than IRV. No need to talk about transferring votes.

Rated methods are generally simple, here is may take on a few:
Score Voting Methods – Score, STAR, and BTR-Score

@casimir said in BTR-score:

That's good. You may even remove the "Hiveism substack" in the text and just keep the foot note if this makes it more readable.

Since every voter can vote for only one candidate, votes are a limited resource that candidates compete over. This turns campaigning into a zero-sum game. Candidates with similar political values must compete against each other. They split the votes, which benefits their mutual opponent.

Thank you, your quote helped the article, a plurality votes as a limited resource does explain some of the current rancor.

People diss voting systems that have not yet been used in public elections, even though the two systems with the most current use, plurality and IRV, have been found wanting.

@casimir said in BTR-score:

I've argued here that it might be more useful to promote a spectrum of compatible methods (approval, score, STAR and BTR-score in this case).

I have quoted your Hiveism Substack on VotersTakeCharge.us.

"Since every voter can vote for only one candidate, votes are a limited resource that candidates compete over. This turns campaigning into a zero-sum game. Candidates with similar political values must compete against each other. They split the votes, which benefits their mutual opponent."

The is a great explanation of the weakness of plurality voting.

If the is a problem, or if you would like me to change how I credit this please let me know.

Thanks, GregW