2012/4/14 Andrew Myers <[email protected]> > On 4/14/12 8:31 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote: > >> On 4/14/12 3:45 AM, ⸘Ŭalabio‽ wrote: >> >>> ¡Hello! >>> >>> ¿How fare you? >>> >>> It is tedious to rank hundreds of candidates, but sometimes monster is >>> on the ballot and all unranked candidates are last. If the field is so >>> polarized that the voters idiotically refuse to rank other serious >>> candidates other than their candidate and the evil candidate has followers, >>> the bad candidate might win. I suggest that Condorcet should have a >>> dummy-candidate: >>> >>> 0 The ranked candidates. >>> 1 The unranked candidates. >>> 2 The dummy-canditate. >>> 3 The monsters. >>> >>> All unranked candidates have higher ranks than the monsters. One can >>> then rank the monsters by how terrible they are. >>> >>> Basically, it is a way to vote against monsters in Condorcet without >>> having to rank all of the hundreds of also-rans. >>> >> >> all this is complicated crap that gunks up elections. it has an >> ice-cube's chance in hell. >> >> I've been observing experimentally how people use a Condorcet election > system in practice over the past ten years (since 2003) and in fact the use > of a dummy candidate to signal approval has become increasingly common. It > seems to be intuitive, at least to web users, and effective. I do agree > that trying to distinguish 0 vs. 1 is probably overly complicated. > > -- Andrew >
Good response. A few examples would be even better. Jameson
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
