[EM] CR style ballots for Ranked Preferences

[Dave Ketchum]

Ok, approval voting is a possibility, though I HOPE for better - I see
most voters wanting to list their first choice up front, and have this
affect who wins (but I think all I want in this preference list is a
simple list of names).

I do not see how to avoid my combining precincts conclusion - we are
talking of millions of voters scattered across a state.

I notice that Condorcet is claimed to be inconsistent.  Agreed that
there are multiple choices as to how to sort the counts of pairs but,
are there none that come reasonably close (when IRV declares Bush the
winner when only 35% call him acceptable and 65% call Gore acceptable
and Bush unacceptable - THAT is a failure)?

That Approval gets used in private elections does not excite me - most
such elections affect FEW lives in the way that public elections do.

In response to comments in other posts:
     About overvoting in FL - my understanding is those voters were (at
least mostly) not deliberately overvoting, but getting tricked into
errors via confusing ballots (that could be interpreted as overvoting).
     About Borda being consistent - perhaps in analyzing the counts.  Do
I have the following right?  Being desperate to do the best I can in
Gore vs Bush, I must place Gore first; wanting to say that I like Nader
even better than Gore, I cannot place Nader first without weakening my
Gore vote.

Dave Ketchum

On Mon, 10 Sep 2001 22:32:29 -0700 Bart Ingles wrote:
> 
> Dave Ketchum wrote:
> >
> > I wander in looking for something better than plurality for uses up to
> > and including electing a governor in NY - where we may have a dozen
> > candidates next year:
> >      Rules for voters MUST be simple and understandable.
> >      Rules for deciding on a winner must be reasonably simple, and NOT
> > declare as winners obvious losers.
> >
> > So we need preference voting.
> > Must be able to combine votes from thousands of precincts.
> 
> Your conclusions (preference voting, combining precincts) don't
> necessarily follow from the requirements.  Approval voting is obviously
> the simplest method other than simple plurality, and is consistent
> (consistency means that combining two precincts, each with the same
> winner, is guaranteed to produce the same overall winner).
> 
> None of the other methods mentioned here (except plurality) is
> consistent (although IRV would obviously fail more often).
> 
> Approval voting also has a track record, in private elections (but in
> some fairly prominent organizations).
> 
> Bart Ingles
> 
> > IRV clearly fails, due to easily declaring wrong winners - also has
> > trouble due to vote patterns being important (Condorcet only counts
> > pairs, with results that can be easily combined into sums for use in
> > deciding on a winner).
> >
> > So far I LIKE Condorcet, though picking the best way to pick a winner
> > from a set of counts needs thought.
> >
> > I like that without the >>> that I see below.
> >
> > REAL question:  Could Condorcet both be improved AND remain explainable
> > to my voters with >>> introduced?  My suspicion is that the answer is no.
> >
> > Dave Ketchum
-- 
 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