Part of the Politics series
Electoral systems
Single-winner/majoritarian Plurality First-past-the-post Plurality at-large (plurality block voting) General ticket (party block voting) Multi-round voting Two-round Exhaustive ballot Primary election Nonpartisan unified top-four Majority at-large (two-round block voting) Ranked / preferential systems Instant-runoff (alternative vote) Contingent vote Coombs' method Condorcet methods (Copeland's, Dodgson's, Kemeny–Young, Minimax, Nanson's, ranked pairs, Schulze, Alternative Smith) Positional voting (Borda count, Nauru/Dowdall method) Bucklin voting Oklahoma primary electoral system Preferential block voting Cardinal / graded systems Score voting Approval voting Combined approval voting Unified primary Usual judgment Satisfaction approval voting Majority judgment STAR voting
Proportional representation Party-list Electoral list open list closed list local lists Highest averages method D'Hondt Sainte-Laguë Huntington–Hill Largest remainder Hare Droop Imperiali Hagenbach-Bischoff National remnant Ranked party list PR Spare vote Proportional forms of ranked voting Single transferable vote Gregory Wright Schulze STV CPO-STV Proportional forms of cardinal voting Proportional approval voting Sequential proportional approval voting Method of Equal Shares Phragmen's voting rules Biproportional apportionment Fair majority voting Weighted voting Direct representation Interactive representation Liquid democracy
Mixed systems By type of representation Mixed-member majoritarian Mixed-member proportional Non-compensatory mixed systems Parallel voting Majority bonus Compensatory mixed systems Additional member system Mixed single vote (positive vote transfer) Scorporo (negative vote transfer) Mixed ballot transferable vote Alternative Vote Plus Dual-member proportional Rural–urban proportional
Other systems and related theory Semi-proportional representation Single non-transferable vote Limited voting Cumulative voting Binomial voting Other systems Multiple non-transferable vote Double simultaneous vote Proxy voting Delegated voting Indirect STV Liquid democracy Random selection (sortition, random ballot) Social choice theory Arrow's theorem Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem Public choice theory List of electoral systems List of electoral systems by country Comparison of electoral systems
Politics portal
v t e

On a rated ballot, the voter may rate each choice independently.

An approval voting ballot does not require ranking or exclusivity.

Cardinal voting refers to any electoral system which allows the voter to give each candidate an independent evaluation, typically a rating or grade.^[1] These are also referred to as "rated" (ratings ballot), "evaluative", "graded", or "absolute" voting systems.^[2][3] Cardinal methods (based on cardinal utility) and ordinal methods (based on ordinal utility) are two main categories of modern voting systems, along with plurality voting.^[4][5][6]

Variants

A majority judgment ballot is based on grades like those used in schools.

There are several voting systems that allow independent ratings of each candidate. For example:

• Approval voting (AV) is the simplest possible method, which allows only the two grades (0, 1): "approved" or "unapproved".^[7]
• Evaluative voting (EV) or combined approval voting (CAV) uses 3 grades (−1, 0, +1): "against", "abstain", or "for".^[7][8][9]
• Score voting or range voting, in which ratings are numerical and the candidate with the highest average (or total^[10][11]) rating wins.
  • Score voting uses a discrete integer scale, typically from 0 to 5 or 0 to 9.^[12][13]
  • Range voting uses a continuous scale from 0 to 1.^{[7][12][14][15]}
• Highest median rules, which elect the candidate with the highest median grade. The various highest median rules differ in their tie-breaking methods. The majority judgment, in which the grades are associated to expressions (such as "Excellent", to "Poor"), is the most common example as it is the first such rule that has been studied, but other rules have since been proposed, e.g. the typical judgment or the usual judgment.
• STAR voting, in which scores are from 0 to 5, and the most-preferred of the top-two highest-scoring candidates wins.^[16][17][18]
• Majority Approval Voting, a scored variant of Bucklin voting, typically using letter grades (such as "A" through "F").^[19]
• 3-2-1 voting, in which voters rate each candidate "Good", "OK", or "Bad", and there are three automatic elimination steps to tally them: first step selects the three candidates with the most "Good" ratings, second the two with the least "Bad", and out of these the one preferred by the majority wins.^[20][21]

Additionally, several cardinal systems have variants for multi-winner elections, typically meant to produce proportional representation, such as:

• Proportional approval voting
• Sequential proportional approval voting
• Satisfaction approval voting
• Re-weighted range voting^[22]

Relationship to rankings

Ratings ballots can be converted to ranked/preferential ballots. For example:

This requires the voting system to accommodate a voter's indifference between two candidates (as in Ranked Pairs or Schulze method).

The opposite is not true: Rankings cannot be converted to ratings, since ratings carry more information about strength of preference, which is destroyed when converting to rankings.

Analysis

By avoiding ranking (and its implication of a monotonic approval reduction from most- to least-preferred candidate) cardinal voting methods may solve a very difficult problem:

A foundational result in social choice theory (the study of voting methods) is Arrow's impossibility theorem, which states that no method can comply with all of a simple set of desirable criteria. However, since one of these criteria (called "universality") implicitly requires that a method be ordinal, not cardinal, Arrow's theorem does not apply to cardinal methods.^{[23][24][25][26]}

Others, however, argue that ratings are fundamentally invalid, because meaningful interpersonal comparisons of utility are impossible.^[27] This was Arrow's original justification for only considering ranked systems,^[28] but later in life he stated that cardinal methods are "probably the best".^[29] Cardinal methods inherently impose a tactical concern that any voter has regarding their second-favorite candidate, in the case that there are 3 or more candidates. Score too high (or Approve) and the voter harms their favorite candidate's chance to win. Score too low (or not Approve) and the voter helps the candidate they least desire to beat their second-favorite and perhaps win.

Psychological research has shown that cardinal ratings (on a numerical or Likert scale, for instance) are more valid and convey more information than ordinal rankings in measuring human opinion.^{[30][31][32][33]}

Cardinal methods can, but don't have to satisfy the Condorcet winner criterion.

Strategic voting

The weighted mean utility theorem gives the optimal strategy for cardinal voting, which is to give maximum score for all options above expected value of the winning option and minimum score for all other options.^[34]