Being the "you" that Raph was addressing, I offer what I was proposing.
As the subject indicates, the topic is Condorcet voting. Also,
listing a candidate who is on the ballot, and could be voted for as
such, should be counted as a misdeed - such could be voted for in the
normal manner without complicating life for those trying to count votes.
But write-ins for those who could fill the office being voted for
should identify such persons as valid candidates. These normally do
not get enough votes to earn other than counting to verify they are
too few to deserve more. In the rare case of more votes they should
be treated as if actually nominated.
As to "equal last", not being mentioned should be treated the same as
a not mentioned nominated candidate.
Dave Ketchum
On Apr 8, 2010, at 1:44 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 05:57 AM 4/8/2010, Raph Frank wrote:
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 11:25 PM, Dave Ketchum <[email protected]
> wrote:
> Write-ins permitted (if few write-ins expected,
> counters may lump all such as if a single candidate - if
assumption correct
> the count verifies it; if incorrect, must recount).
How do you handle write-ins. Are write-ins assumed to be equal last
on all ballots which don't mention them?
Yes. Average Range will treat them as abstentions from rating, but
as votes, they are problematic. Only Asset Voting can truly fix this
problem. However, there is another solution: require a majority. In
that case, with good runoff rules, a write-in could get into a
runoff election by causing majority failure, at some threshold or
standard, one designed to catch write-ins that might win, given a
chance. My proposal is to implement Bucklin as a runoff voting
system and thus start to collect data that could then be used to
determine future reforms. If the runoff allows write-ins, and the
first election results show promise, a write-in candidacy at that
point would be one where other voters were informed. Write-ins in a
Bucklin runoff with, say, no more than three candidates, and a
serious poll preceding it as the primary, is very interesting.
And then, if this is put on the table, we will clearly run into the
fact that established power almost certainly doesn't want write-ins
to be viable, nor does it want third parties to have a chance.
Instant runoff voting, almost certainly, confines winning to two
major parties except in multiwinner elections (where it really isn't
"instant runoff," it's different.)
In real runoff elections, write-ins sometimes win, even without a
write-in runoff. All they have to do is make it up to second place.
In fact, famous pathological elections are based on this, because
the Condorcet winner got bumped down to third place. Lizard vs.
Wizard. If the Wizard had been a write-in candidate, this would have
been an example, but, since it was close between Duke (the Wizard)
and Roemer, Duke wouldn't have made it into the runoff, but it would
have been Roemer vs. the Lizard, and Roemer would have won, certainly.
Bucklin would easily fix elections like this; and good runoff rules
would detect a viable third candidate and include him or her. If
it's top-two, then, for sure, write-ins should be allowed. With a
Bucklin runoff, the voters who prefer a write-in (and they would
have been in the majority, I believe, in Lizard v. Wizard) would
have written in Roemer. And would have put in bottom approved rank,
the Lizard. Duke would have ended up in third place in the end, even
if he didn't get dropped in a Bucklin primary.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
