You have missed the point completely, ignoring issues of illiteracy (25% of adults) and disability and discrimination.
It is simpler to rank candidates "1", "2", "3", "4", etc or to rate them on a "1" to "7" scale with the options in seven clear columns than to engage in any combinatorial addition. JG > -----Original Message----- > From: election-methods-boun...@lists.electorama.com > [mailto:election-methods-boun...@lists.electorama.com] On > Behalf Of fsimm...@pcc.edu > Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 11:35 PM > To: election-methods@lists.electorama.com > Subject: [EM] C//A > > 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