Double negative voting

Voters are frequently restricted to a single choice, which can lead to the "spoiler effect" where a third-party candidate inadvertently aids the candidate they most strongly oppose.
The system often produces winners who lack a true majority mandate, as a candidate can win with a mere plurality of votes in a crowded field.
It encourages tactical voting, where citizens feel compelled to vote for a "lesser of two evils" rather than their preferred representative to avoid "wasting" their vote.
The binary nature of the ballot can exacerbate political polarization by forcing diverse viewpoints into two rigid camps.

While this system allows for backup choices, it is prone to "ballot exhaustion", where a vote is discarded if all of a voter's ranked candidates are eliminated before the final round.
It suffers from the "non-monotonicity" paradox, a mathematical quirk where giving a candidate a higher ranking can actually cause them to lose the election.
The process is significantly more complex to administer, often resulting in prolonged counting periods that can undermine public trust in the speed of results.
Research suggests higher rates of spoiled or invalid ballots compared to simpler methods, particularly in jurisdictions with less voter education funding.

This model operates on a single-round arithmetic sum, where voters assign one positive vote (+1) and two negative votes (-1 or -2) to express both support and opposition.
By eliminating rounds of elimination, it completely avoids the mathematical paradoxes and ballot exhaustion issues found in ranked choice models.
It prioritizes "net consent", meaning the winner is likely to be a consensus candidate who is acceptable to the majority, rather than a polarizing figure with a loud but narrow base.
A primary weakness is that it may encourage negative campaigns as candidates seek to highlight the weaknesses of other candidates.
A secondary weakness is that, candidates with a weaker record and less mistakes are more likely to rise to the top.