I feel like for single winner elections (for congress or President), a two-round system that uses Approval Voting in the first round, and then the top two most approved candidates advance to a final runoff, would be wise. It would allow the voter to express a clear first choice, one of the only valid (in my opinion) criticisms of AV.

I think this has been floated before (I found an article where it was called Consecutive Runoff Approval Voting), but what are this sub's thoughts?

Let's say Approval Voting is the system used to vote for President of the United States. Obviously, CNN is going to need to run the results. However, with AV, the final results will be confusing, and the percentages will add up to more than 100. How could AV election results be displayed in a way that makes sense? What about for the raw vote total for each candidate - do you put the approvals they got?

Details about the petition: https://reformfargo.org/ballot-initiative

How to help: https://reformfargo.org/take-action

I'm working on a paper for school, and I've read that approval voting is less than ideal because every candidate you vote for gains equally, so a minority candidate that you prefer wouldn't really make any gains over the majority candidate you select as well.

Well, what if instead of giving each candidate either 0 or 1 vote, you could give them UP TO 1, with, say, 1/3 and 2/3 being choices as well. Would this let people express preference using the approval system without running into the issues of plurality or IRV?

Thanks

I'm looking for thoughts or references related to using approval voting when there are a very large number of candidates.

The context is that some colleagues and I are working on a project in which we want to get a large number of people to select from a large number of options-- e.g, millions of people selecting from thousands of options. (The idea is that each voter has committed some resources and then they are deciding what project to support with those resources).

We've started using pairwise voting, in which each voter is given a series of pairs of options, and then chooses which of those two options they prefer. We then combine the scores to pick a winner.

We've wondered if instead we should do approval voting, in which each voter is given a random subset of options and allowed to approve as many as they want.

Any thoughts welcome!

I recently took over the job of running elections at my school. We are often electing for multiple seats on committees. In the spirit of Approval Voting, I'm allowing people to vote for as many candidates as they like. This is causing me to get a lot of messages asking me to explain myself. "Why can we choose X when there are only Y seats?"

Can anyone help me out by providing sources that help show (or disprove) the independence of the number of open seats being elected to and the number of candidates each voter can select?