[EM] Hitler-Stalin-Middle Example Again

Rob Lanphier robla at eskimo.com
Fri Mar 1 10:09:42 PST 1996

On Fri, 1 Mar 1996, Mike Ossipoff wrote:
> I've already said what standards I consider important: Getting rid
> of the lesser-of-2-evils problem & protecting majority rule, &
> eliminating the need for defensive strategy. I've told why Condorcet's
> method meets these standards. Does anyone disagree with those standards?
> Does anyone propose another standard that he believes is more important?

To be fair, I think ballot simplicity is important to many people.  I
would agree with you, Mike, that the reasons you stated are more important
than ballot simplicity, though, since removing those problems makes the
*decision* easier.  Since deciding who to vote for is always harder and
more important than the mechanics, I think we should push the fairest
solution, and leave the details of the ballot mechanics for later, since
that problem could be solved by leaps in technology before we generate 
sufficient interest in this method. 

However, if anyone has a particularly elegant way of doing a rank ballot,
I'm all ears.  Actually, what about bar-coded stamps with the name and
picture of each candidate on them, and a place for them on the ballot? 
Sort of like the Publishers' Clearinghouse garbage?  It'd be a bit more
expensive than a plain ballot, but not nearly as expensive as equiping 
all polling places with a ton of computers.  I think people understand 
stamps pretty well, too, and the voter would be able to glance at their 
ballot when all was said and done and verify it quickly.

Rob Lanphier
robla at eskimo.com

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list