But in a real election there will probably always be lines left blank. Let us refer to lines on a ballot that are not marked as abstentions. Abstention represents a subtle factor with range voting that is easily overlooked but it is critically important.
A seemingly natural way to handle abstentions is, when counting to simply ignore them - not change the tally
for the candidate when the candidate's line on a ballot is left
blank; but this is the same as treating an abstention like rating of 0. Superficially this may seem a reasonable thing to do but if we
are tallying with the values 1, 2 and 3 then the range consists of four members, not just three, and that makes it a different voting system.
The point is that unless abstentions are somehow forbidden, it is a critical error (though a common one) to ignore how abstentions are to be handled. As in our first example of the B&B, the vote descriptions may suggest another value, 1, to be assigned for abstentions but it would be best for this important detail to be explicitly stated.
But we suggested before that the range voting system with a range of -1, 0 and 1 is essentially the same as the one with range 1, 2 and 3. This is true provided that abstentions are treated the same -- not numerically, but according to order. If abstentions are treated as 0 in the first case then they must be treated as 2 in the second.
Now let us turn to yet another approach to voting. This system is just like BAV except that each voter is given three ballots to fill out, not just one. The voter now has the option of voting for (or against) each candidate from zero to three times. Ballot counting remains the same though with three times as many ballots.
An alert reader will probably point out that this is not a new system at all. It is just a range voting system where a voter can assign any rating between -3 to +3 to each candidate. That reader would be correct and moreover, it is a balanced voting system.
Take note that range voting is balanced
precisely when abstention is treated as the middle value in the
range. Allowing voters multiple ballots for approval voting (alternatively, a mix of AV and BAV ballots) is a way to describe a range voting system that is not balanced.
But continuing with the three-ballot
paradigm, why in the world would a voter who favors a candidate and
who is given the opportunity to cast three votes for that candidate
and instead choose to cast only one or two? Well, it does leave room
for that voter a way to express that he likes another candidate even
more. Having that ability for accurate expression can seem very important.
But favoring a candidate with only one vote could make a candidate lose to
another candidate the voter actively disfavors. A voter who is primarily concerned
about who wins or loses would probably cast all three votes for each
candidate who seems acceptable.
Likewise, it is hard to justify why a voter
might vote against a candidate only once or twice when he could cast
three votes against.
Range voting would seem to appeal to voters focused on expressing their feelings but to a voter is more concerned with election outcome, there is no advantage over approval voting or in the balanced case, over BAV.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
