1. For every candidate in the race, a voter has a right to give that candidate a “grade” of A, B, F, or G.
So for example, my ballot might look like this:
Nader – A
Gore – B
Bush – G
The ballots should of course be made of paper.
2. Each entry on a ballot, where a voter assigns a grade to a candidate, shall be called a “grading”.
3. The tallying process accumulates an _overall score_ for each candidate. At the start of the tally, the candidate’s accumulated score is zero. The tallying process examines the gradings that the candidate received from the voters. For every grade of “A” found among those, the process adds 50 points to that candidate’s score. For every grade of “B”, it adds 49 points. For every grade of “F”, it deducts 49 points. For every grade of “G”, it deducts 50 points. When all the gradings for that candidate, found on the ballots, have been taken into account, the accumulated score for that candidate is that candidate’s overall score.
The tallying process should of course be carried out by human beings, with witnesses to check to assure accuracy.
4. The candidate with the highest overall score wins the election.
Under this system, my working hypothesis about the best voting strategy for those who favor Nader and strongly oppose Bush, is to vote as in my example above, i. e., Nader A, Gore B, and Bush G. Someone may come along with mathematical reasoning, or made-up example elections, and cause me to reject that hypothesis. Or I could come up with such reasoning or examples myself. But for now, it is my best notion of how they should best vote for their own interests in this scenario.