No no no. Jason you can spend only 100 points whether they are positive or negative. So you can spend 100 points on New Hampshire OR you can spend -100 points on Montana OR you can spend 50 points on New Hampshire and -50 points on Montana. The sum of the magnitudes (ie absolute value) cannot exceed 100. You can spend +90 points and -10 points OR +40 and -60 point but after you take the absolute value of each number and then sum them together the total cannot exceed 100.

And yes this DOES matter. I have already given the most obvious situation ubove. I put 100 points in for New Hampshire, Bob puts in -100 points for New Hampshire and then it would be tied as it should be. This is instead of spreading out 20 points for all states except NH. You admit that this is a problem in this quote

But this happens only if the other person doesn't particularly like any other candidate.

I think it should be okay if somene holds this opinion. But Jason even that is beside the point because I have choosen an extreme example to more clearly illustrate the problem. This problem will exist in many people's vote to a less degree. Okay watch as I dassle you with yet another numerical example.

If I vote 50 for New Hampshire and -50 for Montana you say that I can do the same thing with the current system. This is NOT so the Mathamatical equivalent in non-negative numbers is this: 4 state choices

100 for New Hampshire 50 for state A,B 0 for Montana

This maintains the 100 point preferance of NH over Montana and also maintains the 50 point spread of NH over the other states. In order to do this I need 200 points which I don't have!!!!

The mainly fallacy I see here is that somehow in the ranking system people think that when you give 2 candidates a score of 100 and the rest 0 you are somehow "voting twice" the most obvious example of this was when Elizabeth said "But Eddie if we do your system then everyone would just give each state a score of 100!" what we all need to realise is that if I gave each state a vote of 100 then I have for all intents and purposes not voted at all because I have not affected the outcome. We cannot have any kind of meaningful discussion about voting until everyone realises this fact.