Randomized Voting:
Although a choice of one candidate is made, the voter does not make the choice. Instead, the voter is offered only a single candidate's name (different voters receive different ballots with different candidates assigned randomly) and the voter either checks support or not.
In the case of Balanced Randomized Voting the voter can specify support, opposition or neither.
These systems, balanced or not, are evaluative.
Years ago, I made it clear that I considered Balanced Approval Voting to be an outstanding system of voting and I still hold that opinion. While a great virtue of this system is that it strongly encourages participation by many candidates, in time I came to realize that this very virtue could also present a problem. The problem is that there is a limit to voters' patience to deal conscientiously with a very large number of candidates. That consideration is what motivated my invention of Balanced Ration Voting and of Balanced Randomized Voting. Each of these systems provides a way to limit the number of candidates a voter has to consider while still collecting a meaningful reading on voter preferences.
Of the two systems, Ration Voting may seem more appealing to voters when first described to them, but there is little doubt that Randomized voting would make it easier to vote and it would likely provide the more accurate reading of the opinions of voters.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
