Back in 2015 I published a paper with the title “Why don’t juries try range voting?” In brief, range voting, also known as score voting, is a voting method in which voters give a score or rank to each candidate or issue, rather than just voting for a single candidate from a menu of candidates or voting up or down on each issue. The candidate with the highest average score is elected. (See, for example, the sample ballot pictured below.) If voters are voting on an issue, the issue is considered approved if the average score crosses a pre-determined threshold.

To cut to the chase, I asked ChapGPT: “Why don’t juries try range voting?” and got back the following well-reasoned response:

Juries in the United States typically use a form of majority voting called “unanimity voting” in which all jurors must agree on a verdict. Range voting is not currently used in jury deliberation because it is seen as more complex and time-consuming than the traditional voting methods used by juries. It may also be more difficult for jurors to understand and agree on a method for scoring or ranking the defendants or options. Additionally, the legal system generally favors clear and definite verdicts, and range voting may not provide such clear results.

My 2015 paper, by contrast, makes the case in favor of score voting in jury trials!