New sw method: "extreme scale"

[Saari at aol.com]

In a message dated 97-03-05 23:04:12 EST, you write:

>> I also note that the system as described doesn't distinguish
>> "actively opposed" from "lack of interest" toward a given
>> candidate.  Hence I prefer a plus-and-minus scale. 
>
>Mike has confused the properties of the voting method with the
>properties of the set of choices the group places on the ballot.
>
>There are really only relative preferences; popular constructs like
>"absolute opposition" are mythical.  (Essentially journalistic
>shorthands.) 

Steve is clearly a relativist - however he seems to insist that everybody
else think the same way that he does.

What about a parliamentary situation where there is a proposal "We should do
XXX.: vote support or opposed." ?  Any vote to support or oppose is
meaningful, but what is it relative to?  I suppose you could say that the
vote is relative to the "considered likely outcome" if the proposal fails.
 But Steve's arguments seem to imply that it is impossible to vote support or
oppose on such a proposal (since no other alternatives are listed).  Yet
people do just that all the time.

>What's important is to make sure all the
>vital alternatives are choices on the ballot, so all the vital
>relative preferences can be voted. 
...
>If none of those 
>special choices is on the ballot, then it's because the group
>disagreed with Mike about the importance of being able to express
>what he thinks is vital.  In other words, it's not a limitation of
>the ballot method which would prevent voters from expressing what
>Mike thinks is vital; it would be a decision by the group that those
>expressions are *not* vital and that those special alternatives are
>not acceptible outcomes.

One of my disagreements with ranked ballots is the combination of: a) The
vital importance of including *all* relevant alternatives on the ballot
(which may take potentially unlimited time - another problem) and b) The
ambiguity as to the exact method used to generate the ballot.

For example, in another list Steve suggested a Condorcet ballot where every
person could include every alternative desired onto the ballot.  Yet just now
he implies that the group might choose *not* to include certain alternatives.
 How, pray tell, would *that* group decision take place?

It appears that every "ballot method" requires either dictatorial/unilateral
decisions to decide what gets listed on the ballot, and/or requires some
underpinning parliamentary procedure to make other decisions of the nature
"Should we include XXX on the ballot?" or other questions.

My research has led me to conclude that standard parliamentary procedure
(e.g. Robert's Rules) with amendments and majority rule is flawed.  So even
the ideal ballot method would have a flawed underpinning.

The new FAQ rules are an attempt to design a more sensible parliamentary
procedure.  I also suspect it can be used as is for the "choose one of N"
ballot problem - just by having multiple independent proposals (with either
simultaneous, overlapping, or distinct voting periods).  I do not believe
that getting the timing right is crucial for obtaining a good result.

Mike S