How is it that you feel that score voting is a better tabulation than other Condorcet methods?
Score voting is summable, so you can see an apples to apples comparison of the relative support for all candidates, including non-winners. It is thus highly transparent, not to mention precinct summable too. Score voting is simpler than all Condorcet methods, but particularly with regard to more complicated Condorcet forms like Schulze. See also:
Condorcet voting systems are not usable on many of today’s voting machines. But [score voting] is usable on every voting machine in the USA, including noncomputerized ones (and usually easily), right now, without modification and without reprogramming. That makes [score] more adoptable with less pain and expense.
And keep in mind there is more than one, and they are not all the same.
But they are all more complicated and less transparent than score voting.
“Score” voting is related to both approval voting and Condorcet
Approval voting is literally score voting on a binary 0–1 scale. It is not related to Condorcet—score voting is cardinal (rated) whereas Condorcet is ordinal (ranked).
I myself have in the past experimented with some mathmatical models of a score type system but did not find a “clear advantage” over some of the Condorcet tabulations.
what is your opinion of what the “ideal winner” is? That’s really what this boils down to.
It is mathematically proven that the social welfare function is just “sum of individual utilities”.