[panax]

Another system similar to this but with more information is STAR voting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STAR_voting

They all have different strengths and weaknesses. We should be trying to move to more optimal systems.

[margalabargala]

A major, important difference between the two is that a median HN user can read the Wikipedia page on STAR voting and come away not fully understanding it and have further questions (do score difference magnitudes matter in the runoff? Or only which is higher?).

Meanwhile approval voting is exhaustively explained by "vote for as many candidates as you like. Candidate with the most votes wins."

A "more optimal" voting system doesn't exist in a vacuum, public understanding and trust make a voting system more optimal. Just not more mathematically optimal.

[ClayShentrup]

cardinal (rated) voting methods are better than ordinal (ranked). so score voting, approval voting, and star voting are all good.

approval voting is just score voting on a 0-1 binary scale. star voting is score voting on a 0-5 scale, followed by an "instant runoff" between the top two highest rated candidates.

> public understanding and trust make a voting system more optimal.

star voting: score the candidates from 0 - 5 and the winner is the majority favorite between the two highest rated overall.

there's no risk with public understanding here. i've worked on this subject since 2006, and conducted exit polls with score voting ballots within months of getting into this issue. people understand it just fine. it's radically simpler than ranking.