One of the entries in this table is for a voting system that has not been mentioned before, the traditional rationed voting system. It may be ironic to label as "traditional" a system that may never have been mentioned before, but in this context the word "traditional" only means "not-balanced". In this particular election with three candidates, a voter would be handed three plurality ballots for the voter to fill out and turn in for counting as they would be counted in a plurality voting system. Voters would likely give two or three ballots to their favored candidate -- either Isfor or Isagien -- and perhaps a single ballot for Benute. Benute would lose and the winner would be either Isfor or Isagien.
From this limited perspective, considering just this one special makeup of voter opinions, a couple of things jump out from the table. One is that approval voting, balanced or not, seems to be distinguished by giving a likely win to Benute. But with this one exception, the traditional systems do not provide a real opportunity for Benute to win.
In sharp contrast, each of the balanced voting systems provide a reasonable opportunity for Benute to win the election. This is consistent with the notion suggested from the very start of this series of article that adopting a balanced voting system open not merely the possibility of a multiple-party system, but in fact the likelihood of such a transformation.In another article, we show how all of these voting systems can be expected to behave in a different election.