No, San Francisco used an IRV system, not Range.
No Nation has ever used RV, but I believe the UN does for electing the Secretary General, and the Olympics for ranking divers, gymnastics, etc. And of course this system is used for product reviews on Amazon and such.
Now that I understand strategy in Score better, here's an example:
Suppose your true feelings about 5 candidates are:
So if the Score ballot goes from 0-9, an honest (normalized) ballot might be:
A: █████████ 9
B: ██████ 6
C: ████ 4
D: ██ 2
E: ▏ 0
Now suppose you watch the news and see ...
Why would voters intentionally harm candidates that they actually like?
Because they like other candidates better.
Consider the following case: three candidates named Sanders, Clinton, and Trump. You want Sanders to win, but you prefer Clinton to Trump. If you vote your actual preferences, you might vote
But what ...
I would also like to hear an answer from a hardcore Score Voting enthusiast, but here are some possible partial answers:
iSideWith.com will give you a list of candidates and the percentage you agree with their platforms/positions on issues, which could be converted to a list of scores to put on your ballot. Presumably if score voting were adopted by some ...
This isn't the best source, but supposedly the Doge of Venice was elected using a 3-point Score/Range system for over 500 years, by placing balls in colored urns.
(Actually it might also be Combined approval voting, since the votes includes a connotation of "for" and "against".)
Yes, range voting is used quite frequently. Consider any time You've ever been asked to rate something on a scale of, say, 0 to 10. IMDB.com and reviewing apps in the Apple app store come to Mind, as do Yelp and Priceline. While these examples do not involve nations, the rating system used by these are exactly what range voting is. I find it hard to imagine ...
In most systems of Majority Judgement an abstention is treated as giving the lowest possible judgement of a candidate. Note for example in the link you give "Leaving a candidate blank gives them an F".
Since an abstention is treated as a particular type of vote, it can't be used tactically. In effect, you can't abstain on any of the candidates.
Brythan wrote, "Another issue is that Score Runoff Voting doesn't fix the problem that I described initially. It fixes the problem of you marking Sanders and Clinton the same so as to beat out Trump. It does not fix the problem of you marking Clinton close to Trump because you want Sanders to make it to the two person runoff over Clinton."
There is zero ...
I used to support a Likert-style approach from strongly-disapprove to strongly-approve, but that still aims for some objectivity of meaning in that a pool of all acceptable candidates would get all medium-to-high scores, giving extra weight to those willing to normalize their scores.
Normalizing is the process of taking the lowest scoring candidate and ...