I understand that you have a rational reason for not wanting something like ()3 ()2 ()1 - because (x)3 ()2 (x)1 is ambiguous. But I don't agree. I think most people have an easier time understanding if you tell them that (x)3 ()2 (x)1 means 3, than understanding that (x)2 (x)1 means 3.
Just an opinion, JQ 2011/6/13 <[email protected]> > > Some folks have opined that the ballot line > [candidate name] (4) (2) (1) > Is too complicated. > > How about just > [name] (2) (1) > with the understanding that the score that you assign to the name is the > sum of the digits of the bubbles > that you darken, namely zero (for the empty sum), one, two, or two plus > one. > > The only arithmetic you need to know is that 2+1 is greater than 2, which > is greater than one, which is > greater than nothing. > > If that is too complicated, then we are left with the only thing simpler, > namely Plurality ballots, which > means that the possible methods are Plurality, Asset, Approval, and SODA. > > In any case, I think that the 2+1 style ballots are adequate for Condorcet > methods, because even when > your favorite is not in the top three cycle, you can still rate these four > candidates distinctly. > ---- > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info >
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
