[EM] An hypothetical voting system based on Score-Voting and Majority-Judgement which I do not advocate.

[⸘Ŭalabio‽]

	¡Hello!

	¿How fare you?

	While explaining advanced voting systems to Bronies and PegaSisters, I had an idea about combining the expressiveness of Score-Voting and he resistance to tactical voting of Majority-Judgement.  This is the line of thought leading to the idea:

	Majority-Judgement rests tactical voting by filtering out extreme values which may be do to tactical voting.  This is the way the voting system would work:

	0.	Voters give their favorite candidate a positive +99 and their most hated candidate a negative -99.
	1.	The voters then score other candidates relative to the 2 extremes.
	2.	After counting the votes, the counters throw out all of the negative -99s and the positive +99s.
	3.	The counters remove FROM THE REMAINING BALLOTS the top 3rd plus + 1 ballot and the bottome 3rd plus + 1 ballot.
	4.	The counters then average the scores.
	5.	Highest average wins.

	Example:

	0.	After filtering the negative -99s and the positive +99s, Candidate A has 3 million votes.
	1.	Remove 1,000,001 of the votes with the highest score.
	2.	Remove the 1,000,001 votes with the lowest scores.
	3.	Average remaining 999,998 ballots.

	With regular Score-Voting, one can keep also-rans and write-ins with almost no support from wining by treating blanks and abstentions as negative 99s and assuming that anyone not writing in a candidate as voting against the write-in and simply summing the votes.  Since we average, we need a quorum for keeping candidates with extremely low vote-totals.  I suggest this simple quorum-rule:

	Determine the candidate receiving the most nonblanks and nonabstains.  Only run the above algorithm on candidates receiving greater than > 1/2 as many nonabstains and nonblanks as the top nonblank nonabstained candidate.

	Example:

	The top nonabstained nonblank candidate has votes on 2 million ballots.  The quorum of nonabstained, nonblank ballots a candidate must get is 1 million.

	I have 3 questions:

	0.	¿Did I reinvent the wheel or is this a new system?
	1.	If this system is original, ¿what do the members of this list think about it?
	3.	If this is a new system, ¿what should we name it?

	Now, ¡it is time for advocacy!  ;-)  ¡Definitely not!  This is an untested voting system.  If it survives everything we throw at it for over a decade, then, we can consider it.

	¡Peace!

-- 

	“⸘Ŭalabio‽” <Walabio at MacOSX.Com>

Skype:
	Walabio

An IntactWiki:
	http://circleaks.org/

	“You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.”
	——
	Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan