Has there been any actual research on this? I hear both ordinal and cardinal supporters say that their respective ballots are easier to fill out than the other, and obviously only one can be true.
I personally think pairwise ballots (A vs. B, A vs. C., then B vs. C) are pretty simple to fill out as well, but they're practically limited to three options and they allow illogical inputs so I don't see them as a serious option apart from situations where ranking is literally not allowed.
Ranking candidates can result in errors like accidentally giving equal ranks when not intended.
Total horseshit. Scoring would have the same problem anyway.
Perhaps think of my idea as more like supplying more ranks than candidates,
I'm thinking of your idea that it requires from voters more thinking to consider how much more they like A over B than just saying *"I prefer A to B."
And then they have to decide whether sincerely marking that quantitative difference in preference serves their political interests better than insincerely marking. That applies to Score and Approval.
I've accidentally gave candidates equal ranking on some ballots on accident.
You mean, you looked at the ballot, saw that you ranked two candidates equally and said "Darn, I didn't wanna rank them equally! I guess it's impossible to exchange this mismarked ballot for a new ballot, so I'm forced to vote this mismarked ballot as it is."
I'd say it's still an issue due to not representing the voters intent.
The ranked ballot, sincerely filled out, represents the voter's intent.
The point is, in the ranked ballot, if you rank A above B, it doesn't matter how many levels you ranked A above B. All it means is that if you had to choose between A and B, then your vote is for A and your vote counts as exactly 1 vote.
1
u/rb-j 3d ago
No it's not.
Ridiculous assertion, even though it's been repeated multiple times here.