View text source at Wikipedia
Combined approval voting (CAV) is an electoral system where each voter may express approval, disapproval, or indifference toward each candidate.[1] The winner is the candidate with the highest score, which is determined by subtracting the number of approval votes by the number of disapproval votes.
It is a cardinal system and a variant of score voting. It has also been referred to as dis&approval voting[2][3] or net approval voting.[4][5][6]
Ballots contain a list of candidates, with three options next to each: "approve"/"disapprove"/"abstain", "for"/"against"/"neutral", or similar.[2] The ballot warns that blanks for a candidate are scored as "indifferent" votes.[2] Voters express their opinion of each candidate, and the votes are summed, with support = +1 and opposition = −1. The candidate with the largest score is the winner.
It is also possible to use ballots with two options, "approve"/"disapprove" and treat blanks as abstentions.[citation needed]
Unlike approval voting, in which non-approval could mean either disapproval or indifference, CAV allows explicit expression of disapproval, which is hoped to increase turnout, and reduce spoiled/blank ballots and insincere votes for unviable candidates.[2] Some jurisdictions allow a "none of the above" option to express disapproval of all candidates, but ballots that allow disapproval of specific candidates are otherwise rare.[2][3]
CAV has been independently invented many times. It was originally proposed by Dan Felsenthal in 1989.[1] Alcantud and Laruelle gave it the name "Dis&approval voting" in 2012.[2][7]
As this is mathematically equivalent to 3-level score voting,[8] it shares the same properties. For instance, it is always safe for a voter to approve their honest favorite (the favorite betrayal criterion).[9]
While a (-1, 0, +1) scale is mathematically identical to a (0, 1, 2) scale, there are psychological differences between the two, and the introduction of negative ratings (combined with the change in scoring blanks as middle grades rather than lowest grades) changes the scores that candidates receive in each system. Studies of French voters in 2012 found that, while the highest-rated candidate was the same under either system, and the grades of "exclusive" (polarizing) candidates were relatively unchanged, there were slight increases in the scores of "inclusive" (broadly-liked) candidates, and large increases in the scores of lesser-known candidates.[10]
k candidates ... each voter under CAV has k votes and can, with respect to each candidate, either cast one vote in favor of this candidate, or cast one vote against this candidate, or abstain from voting for this candidate. The outcome of a CAV ballot is the candidate with the largest net vote total (algebraic sum of votes in favor and votes against)
The three levels have the following interpretation: 1 means approval, 0 means indifference, abstention or 'do not know', and -1 means disapproval. ... We investigate the 'dis&approval rule', that selects the candidates who obtain the largest difference between the number of positive votes and the number of negative votes.
you vote up, down, or neutral on each candidate. The candidate with the most approvals minus specific disapprovals wins.
Just two lines in the ballot: who you're for, and who you're against. The difference between 'for' and 'against' votes gives the candidate's net approval vote. Highest net approval vote wins.
able to indicate approval or disapproval of any number of candidates ... as additive votes to show approval and subtractive votes to show disapproval, where the candidate shown to have the highest net approval is the winner.
A three-valued system called "evaluative voting" has been proposed by D. S. Felsenthal, Claude Hillinger, and Mike Ossipoff. ... Mathematically, this is no different from allowing votes of 0, I, or 2.
The alternative that maximizes the sum wins. ... I argue for a three valued scale for general elections. ... with the scale (-1 (against), 0 (neutral), +1 (for)). In a committee of experts a more differentiated rule, EV-5, with the scale (-2,- 1,0,+1,+2) may be appropriate. ... A great advantage of EV is that the voter has no strategic incentive to withdraw his vote from the candidates he likes best.