↑ Baujard, Antoinette; Gavrel, Frédéric; Igersheim, Herrade; Laslier, Jean-François; Lebon, Isabelle (September 2017). "How voters use grade scales in evaluative voting" (PDF). European Journal of Political Economy. 55: 14–28. doi:10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2017.09.006. ISSN0176-2680. A key feature of evaluative voting is a form of independence: the voter can evaluate all the candidates in turn ... another feature of evaluative voting ... is that voters can express some degree of preference.
↑ Riker, William Harrison. (1982). Liberalism against populism : a confrontation between the theory of democracy and the theory of social choice. Waveland Pr. pp. 29–30. ISBN0881333670. OCLC316034736. Ordinal utility is a measure of preferences in terms of rank orders—that is, first, second, etc. ... Cardinal utility is a measure of preferences on a scale of cardinal numbers, such as the scale from zero to one or the scale from one to ten.
↑ Vasiljev, Sergei (April 2008). "Cardinal Voting: The Way to Escape the Social Choice Impossibility by Sergei Vasiljev :: SSRN". SSRN1116545. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
1 2 3 Hillinger, Claude (1 May 2005). "The Case for Utilitarian Voting". Open Access LMU (ภาษาอังกฤษ). Munich. สืบค้นเมื่อ 15 May 2018. Specific UV rules that have been proposed are approval voting, allowing the scores 0, 1; range voting, allowing all numbers in an interval as scores; evaluative voting, allowing the scores −1, 0, 1.
↑ Hillinger, Claude (1 October 2004). "On the Possibility of Democracy and Rational Collective Choice" (ภาษาอังกฤษ). Rochester, NY. SSRN608821. I favor 'evaluative voting' under which a voter can vote for or against any alternative, or abstain. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
↑ Felsenthal, Dan S. (January 1989). "On combining approval with disapproval voting". Behavioral Science (ภาษาอังกฤษ). 34 (1): 53–60. doi:10.1002/bs.3830340105. ISSN0005-7940. under CAV he has three options—cast one vote in favor, abstain, or cast one vote against.
↑ "Range Voting". Social Choice and Beyond. สืบค้นเมื่อ 10 December 2016. with the winner being the one with the largest point total. Or, alternatively, the average may be computed and the one with the highest average wins
↑ "Score Voting". The Center for Election Science. 21 May 2015. สืบค้นเมื่อ 10 December 2016. Simplified forms of score voting automatically give skipped candidates the lowest possible score for the ballot they were skipped. Other forms have those ballots not affect the candidate’s rating at all. Those forms not affecting the candidates rating frequently make use of quotas. Quotas demand a minimum proportion of voters rate that candidate in some way before that candidate is eligible to win.
↑ "Rating Scale Research". RangeVoting.org. สืบค้นเมื่อ 15 May 2018. The present page seems to conclude 0-9 is the best scale.
↑ "Good criteria support range voting". RangeVoting.org. สืบค้นเมื่อ 15 May 2018. Definition 1: For us "Range voting" shall mean the following voting method. Each voter provides as her vote, a set of real number scores, each in [0,1], one for each candidate. The candidate with greatest score-sum, is elected.
↑ Smith, Warren D. (December 2000). "Range Voting" (PDF). The “range voting” system is as follows. In a c-candidate election, you select a vector of c real numbers, each of absolute value ≤1, as your vote. E.g. you could vote (+1, −1, +.3, −.9, +1) in a five-candidate election. The vote-vectors are summed to get a c-vector x and the winner is the i such that xi is maximum.
↑ "STAR Voting". Equal Vote Coalition. สืบค้นเมื่อ 14 July 2018.
