In short
Several voting methods exist beyond the classic yes or no vote, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. ConsensIQ combines cumulative voting with elimination rounds and live discussion, which suits group deliberation but not formal statutory elections. Which method fits best depends on the kind of decision you're making.
Why a single vote isn't always enough
In plurality voting, the most familiar method, everyone picks one option and whoever gets the most votes wins, even if that's well under half. This works fine for simple yes or no questions, but with multiple options it can mean an option wins that only a small share of the group actually wanted, while the rest was split across other choices. That's why alternative methods have been developed that extract more information from a group than a single preference.
Approval voting
In approval voting, everyone can vote for as many options as they like, with no ranking. The option with the most votes wins. It's simple to understand and avoids people voting strategically out of fear of 'wasting' their vote. The drawback is that it doesn't capture intensity: an option you mildly support counts the same as one you fully back.
Cumulative voting
Cumulative voting gives everyone a fixed budget of points, say a hundred, to spread across the options however they see fit. That adds intensity to the vote: you can put everything behind one favourite or spread it across several options. This gives a more nuanced picture than a single vote, though it does require a bit more explanation upfront than simply 'pick one'.
Ranked choice / instant runoff
In ranked choice, also called instant runoff, participants rank the options from favourite to least favourite. The option with the fewest first-preference votes drops out, and those votes move to the next preference on the ballot, repeating until one option holds a majority. This prevents a popular option from being squeezed out because votes split across similar alternatives. It is harder to explain, though, and the redistribution usually happens afterwards, without the group watching the process unfold live.
What ConsensIQ does differently
ConsensIQ combines the idea of cumulative voting with elimination rounds: participants spread points across options, and after each round the option with the least support drops out. Anyone who backed it gets those points back immediately to spend again, visible to the whole group on screen. Between rounds there's room for discussion, so participants can adjust their points based on what they've just heard. That live, iterative character is the biggest difference from ranked choice, where redistribution happens automatically and out of view.
That ability to adjust mid-session is more than a technical detail. It means a group isn't locked into its first impression of a question, but can respond to arguments that only surface later in the conversation. With a one-off vote, whatever the method, that room doesn't exist: once cast, a vote counts, even if someone changes their mind moments later.
- Plurality voting: fast and simple, but little nuance with multiple options
- Approval voting: easy to use, but no distinction in intensity
- Cumulative voting: shows strength of preference through points
- Ranked choice: prevents vote-splitting, but redistribution happens afterwards and out of sight
- ConsensIQ: cumulative voting plus elimination rounds with live redistribution and discussion between rounds
Read how the elimination rounds and points work in practice.
Being honest about fit
It's worth being direct about this: ConsensIQ is built for interactive group sessions where discussion and evolving opinion are welcome, such as a strategy day, a members' consultation, or a team working session. It is not designed for formal, statutory elections with legally binding outcomes, which require a fixed, auditable voting procedure without mid-process changes. For that kind of vote, classic methods, overseen by a notary or an independent election committee, remain the right choice.
Which method works best depends on what you're after: a quick result, a formally binding vote, or a process in which the group arrives at a shared choice along the way. ConsensIQ is built for the latter.