Some folks have suggested STAR Voting is too complicated, so I wanted to describe my findings over the course of the 12 years I’ve spent researching voting systems since I began in 2006.

How it Works

STAR Voting uses 0–5 scores. The blank vote for “Chris” is counted as a zero.

So let’s say Allen and Frank ended up having the most points from all voters. This voter gave Frank a higher score than Allen, so this vote would go to Frank when picking the majority winner (the “automatic runoff”).

One Election Instead of Two!

If a candidate gets a majority in the primary (50%+1 of the votes), that is the only candidate who appears on the November ballot — even though many more voters show up for the November election. If no candidate gets a majority in the primary, the two candidates with the most votes go to the November ballot — even though each of them got only a minority of the total vote in the primary.

In the November election voters are given the choice of only the one or two candidates who made it through the spring primary.

With STAR Voting there is no need for a primary election, so voters would vote only once, in November. This makes for a shorter campaign season focused on the summer and fall when people are paying more attention. It also makes it easier for candidates who don’t have big donors to run a viable campaign.

The ballot would still be nonpartisan, but instead of being limited to picking just one candidate, you can give a score to any or all candidates — even giving the same score to two or more candidates you prefer equally. (Giving no score is counted as a zero.)

See for Yourself

Transparent Results

Results are easy to understand with STAR Voting

On the left, we see all the “candidates” ordered by how many total points they got. Chocolate Chip Cookies and Vanilla Ice Cream are the finalists. On the right, we see that voters preferred Chocolate Chip Cookies to Ice Cream by a 20–15 margin, with 10 voters expressing no preference between those two options.

Exit Poll

The 2006 Texas gubernatorial race, which was won by Republican Rick Perry

All participants intuitively understood the rating scale, and showed no evidence of confusion. Multiple subsequent experiments showed the same thing. For instance, the Harvey Milk Democratic Club adopted a score ballot for their endorsement elections. A score ballot was also used for the hotly contested 2015 straw poll at the Republican Liberty Caucus. Time and time again, participants had no problems.

Spoiled Ballots

Gaming the Vote

The main concern you hear is that it is difficult. Range voting is “unnecessarily complicated,” wrote a poster on the Tacoma, Washington, News-Tribune electronic bulletin board, calling it “something only math geniuses at MIT would dream up for a populace in which many can’t balance a checkbook.” This is Steven Brams main reservation regarding range voting. Many voters don’t know who the vice president is, Brams told Smith. Maybe there is something ridiculous about asking such people to supply numerical scores. It is worth noting that what sold Hot or Not creators James Hong and Jim Young on [casting score ballots] was its speed. They wanted site visitors to rate photos as fast as possible. That way the site would collect many votes for each picture, giving the scores credibility — “a wisdom of crowds thing,” Hong said. “We found that anything that made it harder to vote was a bad thing.” They considered having visitors pick their favorite of two on-screen photos. A photo would win points for each time it was preferred over another, random photo. This would loosely simulate a Borda count. (In a true Borda count, a candidate wins a point every time a voter ranks her above a rival. No Hot or Not voter could rank all the millions of pictures on the site, of course. The aggregate effect of random visitors ranking random pairs would be similar.) However, when shown two photos that happen to be of roughly equal attractiveness, “people will look at the pictures and not know,” Hong said. “They have a harder time deciding.” Hong and Young also considered a simple “hot” or “not” vote on a single picture. This would be an approval vote. There it was “average” Joes and Janes who slowed things down. People would have to ponder whether to click “hot” or “not.” [Score ballots were] faster. It seemed to require less thought.

There have been complaints that Hot or Not is silly, superficial, and sexist. No one thinks it’s hard to understand. The ratings on YouTube, Amazon, and all the other sites do not seem to bother people, either. Olympic judging provides another demonstration that scoring is easier than ranking. The numbers that judges hold up on cards (in cartoons, anyway) are range votes. The judges give preliminary scores because scoring can be done on the fly. With rankings, you have to keep adjusting your numbers so that there’s only one athlete or candidate of each rank. This can be devilishly complicated when there are many competitors. I suspect that what’s really behind the perception that scoring is “hard” is number phobia. A check mark is simple. Numbers are difficult. The bigger the numbers involved, the more difficult it seems.



advocate of score voting and approval voting. software engineer.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store
Clay Shentrup

advocate of score voting and approval voting. software engineer.