On Jul 8, 2010, at 1:28 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
Sorry to be so wordy here. There are 3 different issues (the number
of ranking levels and the value of ballot access criteria, procedure
if Write-In wins, and visual effectiveness of the "pairwise defeats
matrix") to respond to:
On Jul 7, 2010, at 9:56 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote:
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.
there is a question about what is reasonable.
Sure - and debatable. I would expect strong arguments against a
number as small as 5 being an absolute limit.
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.
well, one of the complaints of the anti-IRVers (that applied more to
San Francisco and not to Burlington Vermont) was that, because the
number of candidates was much larger than the number of ranks, then
voters could not express a vote regarding every candidate. if the
candidates that ended up leading the race (getting to the final and
semi-final rounds) were not any that the voter ranked (due partly to
the too few ranking levels), the claim was that this voter was
"disenfranchised". i have her kill-filed, but i'm sure Kathy Dopp
can fill you in on what this sentiment is all about. the funny
thing is that, while this "feature" of IRV (in SF) was a major
complaint of the IRV opponents, what the alternative offered (the
return to the affirmative vote for a single candidate and FPTP and/
or delayed runoff) was even more so a "disenfranchisement" in that
very same manner. it is equivalent to a ranked-order ballot but
with only one ranking level deep.
I started this thread to promote understanding and use of Condorcet.
A big part of that is understanding IRV's limitations.
That anti-IRVers complained about limits on ranking is only a detail -
that IRV inspires voters to want to rank more is part of that debate.
also, sometimes a voter wants to bury a candidate. how does one
vote negatively against a candidate when they cannot rank all the
other candidates above that one? it's okay that all candidates not
ranked by a particular voters are tied for last place on their
ballots if that voter can lift all other candidates, not deemed the
absolute worst, above that level.
Another IRV topic.
similarly to voter registration and ballot access to voters being a
political question, i think that ballot access to candidates is also
a political question. reasonable people can disagree, but i see a
future with political parties to be inevitable. it doesn't mean
that we should have only two viable parties nor that independent
candidates cannot credibly run for office.
Agreed. Not clear to me why IRV was so limited, but Condorcet has no
need for such limits.
but any candidate that deserves the ink and real estate on the
ballot for their name, should be required to demonstrate some level
of electoral support to get there. if the race is broad enough (a
national election in a large country), some candidate need not be on
the ballot for every state or district within that nation, if the
candidate cannot satisfy the qualifying threshold (in petition
signatures) for every district. but whatever the size of the
election venue, be it a city ward, entire city, legislative
district, statewide, whatever, there should be a minimum number of
signatures required for ballot access that is approximately
proportional to the voter population of that venue. that constant
of proportionality would have to be experimentally and empirically
determined, but it should be made high enough to reduce the
candidate field to about half dozen meaningful candidates.
Worthy debate, but I would expect strong arguments for more than a
"half dozen".
since that number would be fixed in law in advance of the race,
there could certainly be election flukes where many more candidates
satisfy the ballot access criteria and, in that case, the number of
ranking levels would be much less than the number of candidates, but
that would be a fluke. if it turned out to become common, the
ballot access threshold should be raised by legislative action.
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.
What follows is debate about how to handle write-ins and how to format
the N*N matrix for publication.
...
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
