[EM] Condorcet-Approval hybrid method

[Dave Ketchum]

On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 13:05:09 -0800 Russ Paielli wrote:

> Daniel Bishop dbishop-at-neo.tamu.edu |EMlist| wrote:
> 
>> Russ Paielli wrote:
> 
> 
>>> I would start by simply choosing the CW if one exists, or paring the 
>>> field down to the Smith set otherwise. Then I would eliminate the 
>>> candidate with the lowest approval and repeat.
>>>
>>> I thought of this yesterday while I was working out, and I thought I 
>>> had come up with something big. Then I searched the EM archives and 
>>> discovered that Kevin Venzke had mentioned it way back in 2003.
>>>
>>> Oh, by the way, I would *not* allow equal rankings. Why not? I just 
>>> don't like them.
>>
>>
>>
>> Not a very convincing reason to me.
> 
> 
> Well, at least it's honest!
> 
>>> They strike me as an unnecessary complication
>>
>>
>>
>> How are they a complication?  If anything, equal rankings make it 
>> *easier* to construct a pairwise matrix.
> 
> 
> Equal rankings complicate matters for several reasons:
> 
> -- They create a potential debate about how they should be counted. 
> Actually, this may not be an issue if you use the Condorcet-Approval 
> hybrid scheme I explained above, so this objection may not be valid in 
> this context. (The old "margins vs. wv" debate will be irrelevant!)


Agreed - but no bigger deal than many we discus - with wv is my thought.

> 
> -- They complicate the vote-counting procedure and corresponding 
> software. This may seem trivial in an academic environment, but in the 
> real world it will be another potential source of bugs.


It is trivial in the real world - a small detail on general design.

> 
> -- They complicate the voter interface and voting procedures. Yes, equal 
> rankings are simple to implement with a vector of radio buttons next to 
> each candidate's name, but I can virtually guarantee that such an 
> interface will be considered unacceptable for general public use.


Actually, they simplify the rules for what I promote for paper ballots (we 
about MUST have paper for absentees, etc.) - suggesting that electronics 
should follow what is easy on paper.  Specifically, let voter indicate 
rank as a single character in a field beside each candidate name.  Some 
voters are going to enter duplicate ranks even if it is forbidden, so I 
suggest making it legal and counting accordingly.

> 
> -- Last but not least, they complicate the explanation of the method to 
> the general public. Just getting the public to understand and accept 
> ranked voting will be a major endeavor in itself. Any unnecessary 
> complications will just irritate the public and provide ammunition for 
> those who dismiss the method as too complicated.


Looks like I covered this above.

> 
>>> and little more than a way to game the system.
>>
>>
>>
>> There's a potentially important practical advantage, in that it allows 
>> voters to cast a Cardinal Rankings-style ballot.  For example, you 
>> could let:
>>
>> Rank 1 = ideal candidate
>> Rank 2 = candidate I have minor disagreements with
>> Rank 3 = candidate I have major disagreements with
>> Rank 4 = candidate I wouldn't vote for even if he were running against 
>> Hitler and Stalin


I would let the voter rank as above, while seeing no particular value in 
it, since all I see is =, <, and >, based on comparing each pair of ranks.

I would not require ranking all, though reading a suggestion that ballot 
counters could supplement the ranking makes it time to think more.

> 
> 
> I don't understand your point here. Are you ranking any of those 
> candidates equal? And why would you even rank/approve the last 
> candidate? Or are you proposing to rank more than one candidate at each 
> of the four levels?
> 
>> If there are a large number of candidates, this could be considerably 
>> easier for the voter than casting a fully-ranked ballot.
> 
> 
> You wouldn't need to rank any more candidates than you would approve in 
> an Approval election.
> 
> --Russ

-- 
  davek at clarityconnect.com    people.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.