To repeat again, in a single winner election, a person either wants a
candidate to be elected with a 100 to 0 percent support level or does not
want a candidate to be elected with a 0 to minus 100 percent anti-support
If Condorcet math is too difficult for a large majority of the voters to
understand (especially circular ties and the tie breaker math), then a simple
method for getting a winner could
(a) just have each voter give 100 to 0 percentage points for each candidate,
(b) for each candidate who gets above 0 values from a majority of all voters,
take the average of the voters voting for the candidate
(c) declare the candidate with the highest average to be elected (with a
lottery tie breaker if two or more candidates have the highest averages).
The voters would obviously rank (a) their highest choices all at or near
100, (b) their lowest choices all at or near 0 and (c) the partial supported
candidates (if any) somewhere between 100 and 0.
It could be required that each above zero candidate to get a different
percentage (i.e. so that each highly ranked candidate does not get 100
percent). This would, of course, take away the right/freedom of the voter to
give two or more candidates the same percentage.
To critics, note the "if" and "could" in the above. The question is
whether or not Condorcet circular ties and tie breaker math is comprehensible
to a large majority of voters in the U.S. due to the extremely poor public
education system in the U.S. (directly related to the minority rule
gerrymander of electing legislative bodies).