Re: [EM] Range-Approval hybrid

[Kristofer Munsterhjelm]

Chris Benham wrote:

I  have an idea for a  FBC complying method  that  I think is clearly
better  than the version of   Range Voting (aka  Average Rating or
Cardinal Ratings)  defined and promoted by  CRV.

  http://rangevoting.org/
 
I suggest that voters use multi-slot ratings ballots that have the bottom

slots (at least 2 and not more than half) clearly labelled as expressing
disapproval and all others as expressing Approval.  The default
rating is the bottom-most.
 
Compute each candidate X's  Approval score and also Approval

Opposition score  (the approval score of the most approved candidate
on ballots that don't approve X).
 
All candidates whose approval score is exceeded by their approval

opposition (AO) score are disqualified.  Elect the undisqualified
candidate that is highest ordered by Average Rating.
 
I suggest many fewer slots than 99  and no  no opinion option, so I

think the resulting method is not more complex for voters.


One way of making it less complex would be to have a cardinal ratings 
(Range) ballot with both positive and negative integers. The voter rates 
every candidate, and those candidates that get below zero points are 
considered disapproved, while those that get above zero are considered 
approved. This idea doesn't specify where those rated at zero (or those 
not rated at all) would appear.


Normalization could be used if required, with either the voter 
specifying absolutely worst and absolutely best (setting the range), 
or by the lowest and highest rated candidate having those positions. So 
if a voter wants to say that he likes all the candidates, but some are 
better than others, he could vote all positive integers, whereas a 
McCain/Obama/Clinton voter could vote McCain less than zero and the 
other two greater than zero. With normalization, the contribution of


A: 1 pts.
B: -1 pts.

to the raw scores would be the same as

A: 3 pts.
B: 1 pt.

but would have a different effect regarding the approval component (only 
A approved in the first case, both approved in the second).


Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

Re: [EM] the 'who' and the 'what' - trying again

[Raph Frank]

On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 12:51 AM, Dave Ketchum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 The idea of having a Condorcet party is to gradually transform Plurality
 elections into Condorcet elections.

 Disturbing existing elections by marrying in something from Condorcet seems
 very destructive considering possible benefits, so how about:
 Run a phantom Condorcet election with current candidates before the
 existing voting.

Right that is what I was thinking.  It was that a party would hold a
condorcet primary.


 Candidates can drop out if they choose:
 Third party candidates have little to lose.
 Major party candidates risk static as to why they did not dare.

Also, I wonder if they could be put on the ballot anyway.  Would that be legal?

 Those who choose to, vote via internet.

This generates massive participation biases.  You need some way to
cancel them out.

 Thus we have ballots to count and report on as a sort of poll.

The trick is to make it so that voters don't just see it as another poll.

Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info