aka the score-them-all system or 0-99 voting , to select winner of an election:

1. each vote consists of one numerical score from 0 to 99 awarded to each candidate (for example 57,0,34,99 could be one vote in a 4-candidate election; advise 99/0 for best/worst);
   
2. voters may fill entries with "X" if they desire not to express an opinion about that candidate (e.g. 57,0,X,99);
   
3. The candidate with the highest average numeric score wins.
   
4. ( Only candidates sufficiently known that at least 25M% of their scores are numeric [with all-X ballots disregarded] are allowed to win; where M is the maximum fraction of numeric scores got by anyone in the race.)

1. EXPRESSIVE: You give information about all candidates not just one, and QUANTITATIVELY – not just who you prefer, but how much.
2. ENCOURAGES HONESTY NOT STRATEGY: Your score for candidate C in no way affects A vs. B battle. So you can give your honest opinion of C without fear of "wasting your vote" or hurting A.
3. Voter never has any incentive to vote someone over (" betray ") his/her favorite. (May sound like an obvious and easy criterion, but very few other voting systems obey it !) This should decrease the importance of cash .
4. UNAFFECTED BY CANDIDATE CLONING: If A has "clones" A ₂ , A ₃ , that neither hurts nor helps them, unlike in the old " plurality voting " system where the clones "split the vote" and lose; and also unlike " Borda voting " where a party assures victory merely by running enough clones. No more bitter enmity between alike candidates.
5. BREAKS STRANGLEHOLD OF SELF-REINFORCING 2-PARTY DOMINATION SO VOTERS GET MORE CHOICES: Plurality & IRV voting yield 2-party domination. Range voting experimentally yields much greater support for 3rd parties than " approval voting ." Having more parties should also decrease the importance of gerrymandering , decrease predictability below 98% , and increase interest & turnout .
6. ANY VOTING MACHINE FOR MULTIPLE PLURALITY CONTESTS , i.e. all extant, can handle range voting. (This for "single digit" range voting i.e. with scores in {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,X}.) IRV and Condorcet voting can't say that.
7. If all voting is strategic, then approximately (a) maximizes number of "PLEASANTLY SURPRISED" voters and (b) ELECTS BEATS-ALL WINNERS whenever they exist.
8. FEWER " SPOILED BALLOTS " and LESS FRAUD. In plurality voting, an accidental hanging chad or overvote can cause your vote to be discarded. With range voting, a hanging chad causes only part of your vote to get discarded (converted to "blank") with the rest – your opinions of all the other candidates – still operational. There's no such thing as an "overvote" since expressing opinions about all candidates is the idea ; there's no wrong way to fill in a ballot. RV also reduces risk of TIES .
9. UNIQUELY BEST among all common single-winner election methods as measured by BAYESIAN REGRET . (Holds for all 720 tried combinations of the following: number V of voters and N of candidates with V>N>2, several kinds of "utility generators", several amounts of "voter ignorance," and with either "honest" or "strategic" voters.)
10. HUGE POSITIVE IMPACT: "Democracy" improved over monarchy and feudalism. Bayesian regret measurements say just switching from plurality to range will cause at least as much further regret reduction!
11. HONEYBEES & ANTS have run trillions of elections over the last 20-50 million years to make hive relocation decisions. Under severe evolutionary pressure, they came up with... range voting!