Search results

Under evaluative voting, the voter freely grades each candidate on a numerical scale, with the winning candidate being determined by the sum of the grades they receive. This paper compares evaluative voting with the two-round system, reporting on an experiment which used various evaluation scales, conducted during the first round of the 2012 French presidential election. Invitations to participate in the study were extended to around 5,000 voters in three cities, and the experiment attracted 2,340 participants. Basing our argument on the ranks, relative scores, and grade profiles of candidates, we show that the two-round system favors "exclusive" candidates, that is candidates who elicit strong feelings, while evaluative rules favor "inclusive" candidates, that is candidates who attract the support of a large span of the electorate. These differences are explained by two complementary reasons: the opportunity for the voter to support several candidates under evaluative voting rules, and the specific pattern of strategic voting under the official, two-round voting rule.

Under evaluative voting, the voter freely grades each candidate on a numerical scale, with the winning candidate being determined by the sum of the grades they receive. This paper compares evaluative voting with the two-round system, reporting on an experiment which used various evaluation scales, conducted during the first round of the 2012 French presidential election. Invitations to participate in the study were extended to around 5,000 voters in three cities, and the experiment attracted 2,340 participants. Basing our argument on the ranks, relative scores, and grade profiles of candidates, we show that the two-round system favors "exclusive" candidates, that is candidates who elicit strong feelings, while evaluative rules favor "inclusive" candidates, that is candidates who attract the support of a large span of the electorate. These differences are explained by two complementary reasons: the opportunity for the voter to support several candidates under evaluative voting rules, and the specific pattern of strategic voting under the official, two-round voting rule.

Under evaluative voting, the voter freely grades each candidate on a numerical scale, with the winning candidate being determined by the sum of the grades they receive. This paper compares evaluative voting with the two-round system, reporting on an experiment which used various evaluation scales, conducted during the first round of the 2012 French presidential election. Invitations to participate in the study were extended to around 5,000 voters in three cities, and the experiment attracted 2,340 participants. Basing our argument on the ranks, relative scores, and grade profiles of candidates, we show that the two-round system favors "exclusive" candidates, that is candidates who elicit strong feelings, while evaluative rules favor "inclusive" candidates, that is candidates who attract the support of a large span of the electorate. These differences are explained by two complementary reasons: the opportunity for the voter to support several candidates under evaluative voting rules, and the specific pattern of strategic voting under the official, two-round voting rule.

Under evaluative voting, the voter freely grades each candidate on a numerical scale, with the winning candidate being determined by the sum of the grades they receive. This paper compares evaluative voting with the two-round system, reporting on an experiment which used various evaluation scales, conducted during the first round of the 2012 French presidential election. Invitations to participate in the study were extended to around 5,000 voters in three cities, and the experiment attracted 2,340 participants. Basing our argument on the ranks, relative scores, and grade profiles of candidates, we show that the two-round system favors "exclusive" candidates, that is candidates who elicit strong feelings, while evaluative rules favor "inclusive" candidates, that is candidates who attract the support of a large span of the electorate. These differences are explained by two complementary reasons: the opportunity for the voter to support several candidates under evaluative voting rules, and the specific pattern of strategic voting under the official, two-round voting rule.

Under evaluative voting, the voter freely grades each candidate on a numerical scale, with the winning candidate being determined by the sum of the grades they receive. This paper compares evaluative voting with the two-round system, reporting on an experiment which used various evaluation scales, conducted during the first round of the 2012 French presidential election. Invitations to participate in the study were extended to around 5,000 voters in three cities, and the experiment attracted 2,340 participants. Basing our argument on the ranks, relative scores, and grade profiles of candidates, we show that the two-round system favors "exclusive" candidates, that is candidates who elicit strong feelings, while evaluative rules favor "inclusive" candidates, that is candidates who attract the support of a large span of the electorate. These differences are explained by two complementary reasons: the opportunity for the voter to support several candidates under evaluative voting rules, and the specific pattern of strategic voting under the official, two-round voting rule.

During the first round of the presidential election of April 22nd, 2012, voters of three French municipalities were invited to test approval voting and three types of evaluation voting. This paper presents the main results of that experiment. After correction of the local and national representativeness bias, two major outputs appear clearly. Approval voting gives a ranking of candidates which is different from uninominal system one. Whatever is the scale of scores, evaluation voting increases this difference. ; A l'occasion du premier tour des élections présidentielles du 22 avril 2012, les électeurs de trois communes françaises ont été invités à tester in situ le vote par approbation ainsi que trois versions du vote par évaluation. Ce papier a pour objet de présenter les résultats de cette expérimentation. Après correction des biais de représentativité locaux et nationaux, deux enseignements principaux s'en dégagent. Le vote par approbation conduit à un classement des candidats qui diffère nettement du scrutin uninominal et, quelle que soit l'échelle des notes retenue, le vote par évaluation tend à accentuer cette divergence.

During the first round of the presidential election of April 22nd, 2012, voters of three French municipalities were invited to test approval voting and three types of evaluation voting. This paper presents the main results of that experiment. After correction of the local and national representativeness bias, two major outputs appear clearly. Approval voting gives a ranking of candidates which is different from uninominal system one. Whatever is the scale of scores, evaluation voting increases this difference. ; A l'occasion du premier tour des élections présidentielles du 22 avril 2012, les électeurs de trois communes françaises ont été invités à tester in situ le vote par approbation ainsi que trois versions du vote par évaluation. Ce papier a pour objet de présenter les résultats de cette expérimentation. Après correction des biais de représentativité locaux et nationaux, deux enseignements principaux s'en dégagent. Le vote par approbation conduit à un classement des candidats qui diffère nettement du scrutin uninominal et, quelle que soit l'échelle des notes retenue, le vote par évaluation tend à accentuer cette divergence.

During the first round of the presidential election of April 22nd, 2012, voters of three French municipalities were invited to test approval voting and three types of evaluation voting. This paper presents the main results of that experiment. After correction of the local and national representativeness bias, two major outputs appear clearly. Approval voting gives a ranking of candidates which is different from uninominal system one. Whatever is the scale of scores, evaluation voting increases this difference. ; A l'occasion du premier tour des élections présidentielles du 22 avril 2012, les électeurs de trois communes françaises ont été invités à tester in situ le vote par approbation ainsi que trois versions du vote par évaluation. Ce papier a pour objet de présenter les résultats de cette expérimentation. Après correction des biais de représentativité locaux et nationaux, deux enseignements principaux s'en dégagent. Le vote par approbation conduit à un classement des candidats qui diffère nettement du scrutin uninominal et, quelle que soit l'échelle des notes retenue, le vote par évaluation tend à accentuer cette divergence.

During the first round of the presidential election of April 22nd, 2012, voters of three French municipalities were invited to test approval voting and three types of evaluation voting. This paper presents the main results of that experiment. After correction of the local and national representativeness bias, two major outputs appear clearly. Approval voting gives a ranking of candidates which is different from uninominal system one. Whatever is the scale of scores, evaluation voting increases this difference. ; A l'occasion du premier tour des élections présidentielles du 22 avril 2012, les électeurs de trois communes françaises ont été invités à tester in situ le vote par approbation ainsi que trois versions du vote par évaluation. Ce papier a pour objet de présenter les résultats de cette expérimentation. Après correction des biais de représentativité locaux et nationaux, deux enseignements principaux s'en dégagent. Le vote par approbation conduit à un classement des candidats qui diffère nettement du scrutin uninominal et, quelle que soit l'échelle des notes retenue, le vote par évaluation tend à accentuer cette divergence.

During the first round of the presidential election of April 22nd, 2012, voters of three French municipalities were invited to test approval voting and three types of evaluation voting. This paper presents the main results of that experiment. After correction of the local and national representativeness bias, two major outputs appear clearly. Approval voting gives a ranking of candidates which is different from uninominal system one. Whatever is the scale of scores, evaluation voting increases this difference. ; A l'occasion du premier tour des élections présidentielles du 22 avril 2012, les électeurs de trois communes françaises ont été invités à tester in situ le vote par approbation ainsi que trois versions du vote par évaluation. Ce papier a pour objet de présenter les résultats de cette expérimentation. Après correction des biais de représentativité locaux et nationaux, deux enseignements principaux s'en dégagent. Le vote par approbation conduit à un classement des candidats qui diffère nettement du scrutin uninominal et, quelle que soit l'échelle des notes retenue, le vote par évaluation tend à accentuer cette divergence.

During the first round of the presidential election of April 22nd, 2012, voters of three French municipalities were invited to test approval voting and three types of evaluation voting. This paper presents the main results of that experiment. After correction of the local and national representativeness bias, two major outputs appear clearly. Approval voting gives a ranking of candidates which is different from uninominal system one. Whatever is the scale of scores, evaluation voting increases this difference. ; A l'occasion du premier tour des élections présidentielles du 22 avril 2012, les électeurs de trois communes françaises ont été invités à tester in situ le vote par approbation ainsi que trois versions du vote par évaluation. Ce papier a pour objet de présenter les résultats de cette expérimentation. Après correction des biais de représentativité locaux et nationaux, deux enseignements principaux s'en dégagent. Le vote par approbation conduit à un classement des candidats qui diffère nettement du scrutin uninominal et, quelle que soit l'échelle des notes retenue, le vote par évaluation tend à accentuer cette divergence.

During the first round of the presidential election of April 22nd, 2012, voters of three French municipalities were invited to test approval voting and three types of evaluation voting. This paper presents the main results of that experiment. After correction of the local and national representativeness bias, two major outputs appear clearly. Approval voting gives a ranking of candidates which is different from uninominal system one. Whatever is the scale of scores, evaluation voting increases this difference. ; A l'occasion du premier tour des élections présidentielles du 22 avril 2012, les électeurs de trois communes françaises ont été invités à tester in situ le vote par approbation ainsi que trois versions du vote par évaluation. Ce papier a pour objet de présenter les résultats de cette expérimentation. Après correction des biais de représentativité locaux et nationaux, deux enseignements principaux s'en dégagent. Le vote par approbation conduit à un classement des candidats qui diffère nettement du scrutin uninominal et, quelle que soit l'échelle des notes retenue, le vote par évaluation tend à accentuer cette divergence.

During the first round of the presidential election of April 22nd, 2012, voters of three French municipalities were invited to test approval voting and three types of evaluation voting. This paper presents the main results of that experiment. After correction of the local and national representativeness bias, two major outputs appear clearly. Approval voting gives a ranking of candidates which is different from uninominal system one. Whatever is the scale of scores, evaluation voting increases this difference. ; A l'occasion du premier tour des élections présidentielles du 22 avril 2012, les électeurs de trois communes françaises ont été invités à tester in situ le vote par approbation ainsi que trois versions du vote par évaluation. Ce papier a pour objet de présenter les résultats de cette expérimentation. Après correction des biais de représentativité locaux et nationaux, deux enseignements principaux s'en dégagent. Le vote par approbation conduit à un classement des candidats qui diffère nettement du scrutin uninominal et, quelle que soit l'échelle des notes retenue, le vote par évaluation tend à accentuer cette divergence.