[EM] Re: Alternatives to Borda Count

[DEMOREP1 at aol.com]

Mr. Ossipoff wrote in part-

Demorep: Will you start advocating -100 to +100 as an improvement over
IRV?

---
D-  The use of ratings would be to upgrade Approval (not IRV) to match 
reality--- even acceptable candidates have different degrees of acceptability.

A YES (shorthand for 0 to +100)/NO (shorthand for 0 to -100) vote might do 
for starters--- preferably with number voting (1, 2, etc.) (to allow head to 
head voting and using a place votes tiebreaker if there is (are) no (not 
enough) head to head winner(s)).

I mention again that lots of voters (including yours truly) would like to 
vote YES or NO on many candidates.

Combining YES/NO and number voting by the use of a rating vote may cause 
problems for some voters (taking note of the problems in Florida in Nov. 2000 
for some voters).

Use of -100 to +100 would probably require some major public education 
(taking note of the various ballots and the problems for some voters in the 
Florida 2000 President election mess) and the use of computerized voting.

As has been noted, a 0 to 100 scale might be used (with some education that 
an under 50 rating means NO).  Even a 0 to 10 scale might be used (with some 
education that an under 5 rating means NO).

The computerized display would probably have to show the final ratings 
vertically (as in my earlier example) before the voter casts his/her *final* 
vote.

Data entry of a rating by the use of a keyboard or mouse would require some 
education of many voters (who, like it or not, are barely functional 
illiterates).

Some extreme possibilities on a 0 to 100 scale--

Choice A
51 x 100
49 x 0

median 100
average 51
----
Choice B
51 x 51
49 x 0

median 51
average 26.01
----
Choice C
49 x 100
51 x 0

median 0
average 49
-----
Choice D
49 x 100
51 x 49

median 49
average 73.99

The medians would have to be used to determine winners in executive and 
judicial elections.  Choice D and his/her supporters might be very unhappy 
but the majority rules.

Obviously, currently, each winner has the delusion that EVERY vote for him or 
her is a +100 vote (with the resulting delusional talk about *mandates* to do 
such and such- especially by Presidents and Governors).

The use of ratings would give a better idea to the winners and losers where 
they stand with the voters (especially type Choice B very marginal possible 
winners).