On Jul 6, 2010, at 11:31 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
On Jul 6, 2010, at 9:31 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote:
Ballots: Must support write-ins and, perhaps, 3 ranks (do not need
to rank rejects and can do equal ranking).
i think that the number of ranking levels should be as large as the
number of candidates (and there should be ballot access laws that
make it difficult enough to get on the ballot that no more than
maybe 5 candidates normally get on).
Making getting on the ballot unreasonably difficult affects who gets
to run, unreasonably - lets don't.
No real need for a ranking level for every candidate. Especially when
there are many candidates voters will happily use some equal ranks and
will not bother to rank those they see as not worth ranking.
i think Write-In can just be considered another candidate.
Agreed each should be, and my way of counting provides for this.
Counters can hear before election day of likely need.
Near here, a few years ago, someone's error resulted in no
petitions being submitted on time. Recovery was to do entire election
with write-ins.
the only issue is what to do if Write-In wins, then there must be
some assumption first to determine who the likely write-in candidate
is, hand separate those ballots from the others with a write-in (and
call them two different candidates, Write-In1 and Write-In2). and
then retabulate as a Condorcet election and see if Write-In1 still
wins.
Voting: Voter can rank one or more candidates, much as would be
done in various methods:
Bullet voting, ala Plurality - simply rank one. This is a
suitable vote for many voters in many races.
Approval - just give them the same rank.
Condorcet - Equal ranking permitted. Counters care only which of
any pair of candidates ranks higher, not how voter decides on
ranking.
Rank below unranked candidates? Can't, but can rank all others
above those most hated.
only if you have enough ranking levels.
Rank, but number not clear - rules could have counters treat such
as a rank below the lowest real rank.
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 - if many expected for one
person, that name could be added in for counting).
Counting: Have an N array with one entry per candidate plus an N*N
matrix with one row and column per candidate.
...
Reporting results: Besides the winner, contents of the final N*N
matrix can be useful. N*N matrices for districts such as a town or
county can also be done and published.
i still think that rectangular N*N matrix is sorta useless. it's
hard to read. each pair should be grouped together for visual
inspection.
Debatable.
r b-j [email protected]
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
