Differences of sincerity definitions

[David Catchpole]

I would say 1,1,2,2,3 was my preference if I were to vote with some equal
rankings, though given certain rules I don't see any fundamental
difference from 1,1,3,3,5 if you're voting in an STV election (I've got a
pet STV system specifically designed to handle indifferant/equal
rankings that has a .EXE demonstration program if you want it). If you're
talking Borda I side with using 3/2,3/2,7/2,7/2,5 (or, if you like
highest scores, 9/2,9/2,5/2,5/2,1) so the voter still uses
the same number of points. There's some other reason for this
arrangement for Copeland's method though I'll have to remember it or find
the envelope I wrote it on (!).

On Sun, 3 Dec 2000 DEMOREP1 at aol.com wrote:

> I was assuming that all rank-balloting systems do not allow equal ranking
>
> (except for the truncating of votes so that all the unnumbered candidates
>
> are equal).  How would you allow equal rankings? Would it be; 1,1,3,3,5 or
>
> 1,1,2,2,3 or something else?  That could prove a little too complicated.
> ---
> D-
>
> Desired > Compromise ( known or possibly unknown ) > Unacceptable ( known or
> possibly unknown )
>
> How many choices within each of the 3 (5) groups are equal (i.e. mixing
> Number Voting and partial Approval Voting) ???
>
> With electronic voting all sorts of number/rating math is possible (but
> unlikely for a very large percentage of the voters ).
>
>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guy at hot dog stand:	Yo, Dalai Lama, what'll you have?
The Big DL:		Make me one with everything.
				-Thanks to www.newgrounds.com