Voting Methods

RosaVote runs several voting methods. Official count methods can be a contest's binding result; comparison preview methods let an administrator see how the same ballots would turn out under another rule (never the official result). Proportional methods (STV, Meek, STAR-PR) give a like-minded group seats in proportion to its support; majoritarian methods can let a 51% bloc take every seat. Every method here is documented, tested, and reproducible — see the accuracy & tests page.

Yes / No (with Abstain) Single question Official count

Each voter picks Yes, No, or Abstain. The side with more votes wins; abstentions are reported but excluded from the Yes-vs-No margin.

Pros

Unambiguous for a single motion, endorsement, or bylaws change.
Abstain is recorded separately, so quorum/participation is visible.

Cons

Only answers one binary question — not for electing people or ranking options.

Best for: Referendums, endorsements, single ballot measures.

Multi-select Choose-many Official count

Voters check every option they support (or Abstain). Each check is counted; the tally shows support for each option.

Pros

Simple for 'check all that apply' — pledges, interest sign-ups, non-exclusive lists.
No vote-splitting between similar options.

Cons

As an election method it's majoritarian (see MNTV below) — a coordinated majority can carry every option; RosaVote uses it for tallies, not seat allocation.

Best for: Pledge lists, committee interest, any non-exclusive checklist.

Ranked choice — Scottish STV Proportional (multi-winner) Official count

Voters rank candidates 1, 2, 3… A candidate needs a quota (Droop) to win. Surplus votes above the quota, and votes for eliminated candidates, transfer to each ballot's next choice — by fixed fractions (SSI 2007/42).

Pros

Proportional: a like-minded bloc wins seats in proportion to its support.
Little vote-splitting or wasted votes; widely used and legally defined.
Exactly the method behind DSA's NPC At-Large count (matches OpaVote).

Cons

More complex to explain than a plain X-vote.
Fractional transfers mean a hand recount is tedious (but fully reproducible).

Best for: Delegate slates, at-large committees, any multi-seat body meant to mirror the electorate.

Ranked choice — Meek STV Proportional (multi-winner) Official count

Same ranked ballots as Scottish STV, but surpluses transfer continuously via iterative 'keep factors' and the quota shrinks as ballots exhaust (New Zealand rules).

Pros

The most precise STV — treats later preferences more fairly than fixed-fraction transfer.
Required by YDSA for its NCC and delegate elections.

Cons

Needs a computer (iterative, not hand-countable).
Can differ from Scottish STV in very close contests — same ballots, subtler math.

Best for: YDSA NCC/co-chairs and delegate elections; anywhere the bylaws specify Meek.

Score voting Rated (multi-winner) Official count

Voters rate every candidate on a scale (DSA at-large uses 0/1/2 = disapprove/neutral/approve). Scores are summed; the highest totals win.

Pros

Very expressive — you rate everyone, not just rank.
Simple to tabulate and hand-verify (just add the columns).
The exact method in DSA's 2023 at-large delegate rules.

Cons

Majoritarian, not proportional — a majority that scores its slate high can win every seat.
Invites tactical min/max scoring (give only 0s and maxes).

Best for: At-large delegate elections run under score rules; quick expressive votes.

STAR voting Rated (single-winner) Official count

Score Then Automatic Runoff. Round 1: sum the ratings. Round 2: the two highest-scoring candidates go to an automatic runoff, where each ballot counts for whichever finalist it scored higher. The runoff winner is elected.

Pros

Keeps score's expressiveness but the runoff blunts tactical exaggeration.
Always elects a candidate a majority preferred over the runner-up.
Matches the Equal Vote / starvoting.org single-winner definition exactly.

Cons

Single-winner by nature; for many seats it becomes Bloc STAR (below).
Slightly more to explain than plain score.

Best for: Single officers (a chair, a treasurer), tie-broken expressive elections.

Bloc STAR Rated (multi-winner, majoritarian) Official count

STAR run once per seat: elect a STAR winner, remove them, repeat with the same ballots.

Pros

Simple multi-winner extension of STAR; good when you want the majority's whole slate.

Cons

Majoritarian — a 51% bloc can take 100% of the seats; NOT proportional.
Use STAR-PR or STV instead for a representative body.

Best for: Small slates where proportionality isn't the goal.

STAR-PR (Allocated Score) Rated (proportional) Official count

Proportional multi-winner STAR. A Hare quota = ballots ÷ seats. Each round elects the highest scorer, then 'spends' exactly one quota of ballot weight from the voters who scored that winner highest — so a faction that fills a seat has less weight left for the next. This is the Equal Vote Coalition's method (and the default multi-winner mode in the larryhastings/starvote library).

Pros

Proportional like STV, but on expressive rated ballots.
A cohesive minority earns its fair share of seats.

Cons

Newer and less battle-tested than STV in binding elections.
Quota ballot-spending is computer-only (reproducible, not hand-countable).

Best for: Multi-seat committees on score ballots where minority representation matters.

Plurality / SNTV Comparison Comparison preview

Each ballot counts for its first choice only; the top vote-getters win.

Pros

The most familiar method; trivial to count.

Cons

Severe vote-splitting; 'spoiler' effects; not proportional.

Best for: Recount comparison only — see how a contest would look under plain plurality.

Approval Comparison Comparison preview

Every candidate a voter marked (here, ranked at all) counts as approved; most approvals win.

Pros

Simple; no vote-splitting between similar candidates.

Cons

Ignores strength of preference; majoritarian.

Best for: Recount comparison only.

Borda count Comparison Comparison preview

Points by rank: a first choice earns the most, each lower rank one point less.

Pros

Rewards broad consensus candidates.

Cons

Easy to game with strategic ranking; rarely used for binding elections.

Best for: Recount comparison only.

Instant-Runoff (IRV / RCV) Comparison Comparison preview

Single-winner ranked choice: the lowest candidate is eliminated and their ballots transfer until someone has a majority. For multiple seats RosaVote runs it sequentially (elect, remove, repeat).

Pros

Familiar 'ranked-choice voting' as used in many US public elections.
Guarantees a majority winner for a single seat.

Cons

Sequential/for-many-seats it is majoritarian, NOT proportional (unlike STV).

Best for: Recount comparison; single-seat ranked contests where a majority winner is the goal.

MNTV / block plurality Comparison Comparison preview

Each voter casts up to as many equal votes as there are seats (here, their top preferences); the highest vote-getters fill the seats.

Pros

Simple and familiar for multi-seat races on a single ballot.

Cons

Strongly majoritarian — a coordinated majority sweeps every seat; not proportional.

Best for: Recount comparison only — the OpaVote-documented block-voting baseline.

Quota requirements (diversity minimums/maximums, e.g. the YDSA NCC's ‘at least 5 non-cis-men, at least 4 people of color’) can be layered onto any STV, Meek, or Score/STAR contest: candidates barred by a maximum are passed over, and seats are reserved so a minimum is never stranded — across a whole body of contests when needed.

← Back to RosaVote