On Wed, 18 Sep 2002 17:38:02 -0700 (PDT) Forest Simmons wrote: > On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Dave Ketchum wrote in part: > > >>>[Adam wrote] >>>At first I didn't like this idea, but its grown on me. The simplicity >>>to the voter of ABCD(E)F voting is worth it. The voters who are >>>interested and involved enough to actually need six distinct levels of >>>approval are the same voters who will understand that the unmarked >>>candidate will get the E grade. >>> >>[Dave responded] >>This illusion of apparent simplicity is not real: >> As a student I can dream of A, and react to what I get - THIS I am >>used to. >> In a poll I can grade a question, knowing the results may be >>averaged - this is similar. >> As an involved voter I can get a headache from this opportunity. >>Easy enough to give my true preference an A; what do I do about what is >>left of Nader, Gore, Bush, Hagelin, Buchanan, etc., since I want them less >>than A, but want to do all I can to help the least of the evils (likely >>Bush or Gore) win over the rest. >> As a voter who gets a headache from the apparent opportunity >>existing, what stops me from rounding up my friends and starting a riot? >> > > The voter has an advantage over the teacher, namely the secret ballot. > When a student is on the borderline between B and C, I have to be prepared > (as a teacher) to justify my choice to him/her. In the voting booth I can > flip a coin without having to justify my vote to anybody. > > With six available levels, flipping a coin to decide borderline cases is > (in elections with many thousands of voters) statistically tantamount to > having hundreds of levels of choice. > > Better to round your utility estimates than to round up your friends for a > riot! > > However, if voter psychology is not up to accepting the statistical > argument, then we can always resort to the plus/minus options on the grade > ballot. Even with that complication it is still much simpler and more > familiar (hence less confusing) and more versatile (allowing equality at > various levels) than the standard ranked preference ballot (if there is > such a thing). >
For the case I presented I care not about secrecy, and said nothing to suggest an interest in borderline decisions. My goals were clear, and were presented. The problem is in how to accomplish them since I can suspect others may be able to walk over me by understanding better how to take advantage of the flexibility offered by these rules. > > Forest -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026 Do to no one what you would not want done to you. If you want peace, work for justice. ---- For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em
