The results are in for the<a href="http://betterpolls.com/v/1189"> voting system branding poll</a>, in which I polled new names for using with the general public to advocate the main classes of voting systems. Just as "IRV" is more descriptive and user-friendly than "Hare", there must be less-opaque names than "Bucklin" or "Condorcet" which we could use.<div>
<br></div><div>The site where I ran the polls, <a href="http://betterpolls.com">betterpolls.com</a>, does a really thorough job. It uses a generalized range ballot to infer the winner under a number of voting systems, does a good job of putting the results in exhaustive tables. So if you're interested in that, follow the link above. Here's a quick summary, followed by my comments.</div>
<div><br></div><div>There were only 16 votes. I said before the poll that I was hoping it would reach 25 votes, so 16, while not horrible, is not ideal. Still, I think that the results are valid.</div><div><br></div><div>
<b>First question: Name for Condorcet</b>. (I know that there are of course many variants of Condorcet, but since they mostly agree for practical cases where the Smith set is 1-3 candidates, for the purposes of advocacy they can be lumped together.)</div>
<div><br></div><div>Winners by system: </div><div><table border="1" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: medium; "><tbody><tr><th>System</th><th>Winning name</th></tr><tr><td>Instant Runoff Normalized Ratings</td>
<td>Condorcet Voting</td></tr><tr><td>Virtual Round Robin</td><td><b>Round Robin Voting (RRV)</b> -- nice contrast with IRV. Could be Instant Round Robin Voting (IRRV)</td></tr><tr><td>Raw Rating Summation</td><td>Round Robin Voting (RRV) -- nice contrast with IRV. Could be Instant Round Robin Voting (IRRV)</td>
</tr><tr><td>Approval</td><td>Condorcet Voting</td></tr><tr><td>Instant Runoff Voting</td><td>Pairwise Champion Voting (PCV)<br></td></tr></tbody></table>Essentially, "Condorcet" had the broadest consensus, but "RRV" (an early write-in) was most favored, with "PCV" a close second.</div>
<div><br></div><div><b>Second question: Name for Bucklin</b> (again, lumping all Bucklin variants together for the purpose of advocacy)</div><div>The winner across all methods was "<b>Majority Choice Approval (MCA)</b>".</div>
<div><br></div><div>Third question: Name for Range</div><div>This was the old question of Range or Score. Cardinal methods picked Range; ordinal ones picked Score. In this case, it is significant that some voters were strongly strategic, rating all options at +10 or -10, while others were much more neutral, in some cases with no ratings below 0.</div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: medium; "><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></span><table border="1" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: medium; ">
<tbody><tr><th>System</th><th>Winner(s)</th></tr><tr><td>Instant Runoff Normalized Ratings</td><td>Range Voting (RV)</td></tr><tr><td>Virtual Round Robin</td><td>Score Voting (SV)</td></tr><tr><td>Raw Rating Summation</td>
<td>Range Voting (RV)</td></tr><tr><td>Approval</td><td>Range Voting (RV)</td></tr><tr><td>Instant Runoff Voting</td><td>Score Voting (SV)<font class="Apple-style-span" face="arial"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; font-size: small;"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="'Times New Roman'"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; font-size: medium;"><br>
</span></font></span></font></td></tr></tbody></table></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><b>Fourth question: Name for IRV/Hare</b></div><div>The winner across all methods was "<b>IRV</b>".</div><div><br></div>
<div><b>Fifth question: Best system</b> (this was included only for interest, as the sample was not at all scientific)</div><div>The winner across all methods was <b>Range</b>. Counting the results by Approval, it was tied with Approval and Condorcet, because all three systems got nearly unanimously non-negative ratings. Interestingly, there was a Condorcet tie for second place, with Approval >> Condorcet > Bucklin > Approval. That may have been a statistical fluke, although it actually makes some sense to me.</div>
<div><br></div><div>-----------------</div><div><br></div><div>In my opinion, these results are good. They're not my own top choices, but for branding, I trust the wisdom of crowds far more than my own guesses. The old Range/Score debate is not resolved, but I have already started to use the new names in my advocacy, and they work. For Condorcet, I say "Round Robin Voting" for a generic Condorcet-compliant system, but "pairwise champion" for the CW. For Bucklin, I understand that "MCA" already has a technical meaning as a specific Bucklin variant, but I think it can still be used to advocate for the general class of (equality-allowed) Bucklin systems.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I'd be interested to hear if people are willing to join me in starting this usage when advocating for these systems with the general public. Honestly, I think that it would increase our success. I know that I'm one of the few strong advocates for MCA, but there are a number of people on these lists who favor some form of RRV as the best system for practical implementation.</div>
<div><br></div><div>What say you?</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div>JQ</div>