[EM] Blake reply

[Blake Cretney]

On Tue, 01 May 2001 06:40:56 -0000
"MIKE OSSIPOFF" <nkklrp at hotmail.com> wrote:

> I'd said:
> 
> >What isn't considering it. I'm considering it. That's one reason
why
> >there can be truncation. Other reasons are strategic, and lazy, and
> >principled--I'd refuse to rank anyone unacceptable, just as I'd
> refuse
> >to rank an unacceptable voting system in a voing system poll.

> Blake continues:
--snip--
> If someone can't be bothered to rank B over C, I don't consider the
> information that they actually prefer B to C to be very important. 
I
> don't think an opinion is likely to be well thought out, if the
voter
> can't even be bothered to mark it on the ballot.
> 
> I reply:
> 
> Maybe there are 20 or 30 candidates, and the voter has other things
> to do.

So, they have time to form an opinion, but not to mark it?

You've talked about how terrible non-strategic truncation is in
margins, because it might defeat a sincere CW.  This means that the
candidate is only the sincere CW because of preferences that either
voters can't be bothered to express, or they refuse to express because
they find the sincere CW so contemptible.

My point is, that such a candidate really doesn't have much of a
claim.  I think that it is reasonable to ignore preferences that a
voter can't be bothered to vote.  They don't seem like very reliable
preferences.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Blake Cretney   http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/harrow/124/path

Ranked Pairs gives the ranking of the options that always reflects 
the majority preference between any two options, except in order to
reflect majority preferences with greater margins. 
(B. T. Zavist & T. Tideman, "Complete independence  of clones in the 
ranked pairs rule", Social choice and welfare, vol 6, 167-173, 1989)