On May 31, 2011, at 10:46 PM, [email protected] wrote:
It seems to me that thevoters are more worried about the ballot type
and ease of voting it than they are
of the exact counting rules. There are several Condorcet methods
that are clone proof and monotonic
without being too complicated. I agree with Kevin that "elect the
CW if there is one, else elect the
candidate ranked (or ranked above last) on the greatest number of
ballots" is plenty simple, and is much
more satisfactory than MinMax or Copeland in other respects.
my question is if number of possible ranking levels is at least as
large as the number of candidates on the ballot (not counting Write-In
who can be accommodated without forcing the voter to equally rank any
other candidates) if Candidates A through E are ranked 1 to 5, is the
vote for Candidate E (who is ranked lowest) counted? or must E be
last by not being ranked to be not counted?
But, as I said, what we really need to concentrate on is simplicity
in votinig, i.e. how do we make ballots
that easy to use for "Hodge, fresh from the plough," as Lewis
Carroll put it.
It has been averred many times on this list that in Australia, where
partial rankings are considered
spoiled ballots,
that sure makes little sense. is this related to the mandatory voting
laws for Aussies i hear about?
the vast majority of voters fill out their ballots by copying
"candidate cards" which are
published sample ballots recommended by the various candidates.
Asset voting makes this automatic for 100% of the voters. That's
probably going too far, so how do we
get a compromise between Asset voting and Condorcet?
i forget what Asset voting is. is it Approval or Score voting? (if
so, why a different name?)
L8r,
--
r b-j [email protected]
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
