Exaggerated opinions

[Saari]

In a message dated 98-04-29 11:54:38 EDT, you write:

<< I think that some variation of Condorcet is the 'natural' method for 
 ranking, with complexity being its only real draw-back >>

I note that in order to conduct a ranked vote, there must first be prepared a
single ballot showing "all of the available choices".  Naturally, it is
impossible to enumerate "every possible choice" therefore some
dictatorial/hierarchical element must be created to create "the official
ballot".  And if that ballot neglects to include "none of the above" then it
can and will be used to force an outcome even if the voters uniformly dislike
all of the proferred choices.  That same dictatorial/hierarchical element can
also delay a vote with the plausible "we haven't gathered all of the possible
options yet".

Ranked votes (i.e. first, second, third) of ANY sort, regardless of the
scoring method being used, necessarily involve a dictatorial ballot-creating
function.

In order to get group decision WITHOUT invoking a dictatorial element, there
are only a couple of possible choices.  Namely, each option or choice gets its
own ballot, and new choices/ballots are created by the members of the group
when desired (not the "official ballot committee").  The voting system used
should then allow each member to express an honest opinion about each choice
when offered.  Yes/no is possible but pretty simplistic.  Better is
Support/Oppose/Neither/Both.  Other versions can allow more gradations for
better expression.  

Mike Saari