[EM] Truncation

[Dave Ketchum]

On Wed, 18 Sep 2002 18:57:24 -0700 matt at tidalwave.net wrote:

> On 18 Sep 2002 at 18:30, Dave Ketchum wrote:
> 
> 
>>I do offer three levels under Condorcet that could be worth some thought. 
>>  I rank:
>>      Those I like, just as has been.  Count each of these toward winning 
>>in their pairs against all except those above - nothing new.
>>      NOTB to represent those I choose not to rank, treating these as has 
>>been done.
>>      The lemons, with the rottenest one last.  Count each of these toward 
>>losing in their pairs against all except those below - but do it as a 
>>negative count as to how many voters approve them.
>>
>>To clarify:
>>      2 A ... NOTB ... Z
>>      some who leave both A and Z unranked
>>      1 Z ... NOTB ... A
>>      Gives A>Z net of 1 (2-1)
>>      Gives Z>A net of -1 (1-2)
>>
>>This much ranking seems doable to me - I can identify those I like, those 
>>I DISlike, and happily leave the rest in the middle.
>>
>>As to 1-man-one-vote I claim no violation - each voter gets the same 
>>opportunity.
>>
> 
> It seems to me to be the same violation that occurs with truncation when ballots are 
> not completed.  The more candidates left off uncompleted ballots the smaller the 
> voter's voice in deciding the outcome.  Please keep in mind Bert Ingles 
> demonstration that Adam Tarr was wrong about truncation never negatively 
> effecting the outcome for the voter that truncates.
> 

I still claim no violation - each voter is offered an identical opportunity.
-------------------------

Seems to me much of this truncation debate has a weak foundation - 
assuming I might choose between two different votes for strategic reasons. 
  Important part is that they are DIFFERENT votes.  I can vote:
      A - I desire A and, should I lose that, I offer no opinion as to a 
substitute.  In the example this was effectively plurality - most of the 
voters voted for either A or C alone - meaning A or C should win..
      A>B>C - I desire A and, should I lose that, B is my second choice to 
be considered.  In the example all considered B acceptable and those who 
ranked A>C about tied with those who ranked C>A - meaning neither A nor C 
had majority backing.
-- 
  davek at clarityconnect.com    http://www.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
   Dave Ketchum    108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY  13827-1708    607-687-5026
              Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
                    If you want peace, work for justice.

----
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), 
please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em