[EM] Consistency, Truncation, etc. (was CR ballots, etc.)

[Forest Simmons]

My example wasn't intended to discourage your ballot type
(with neutrality of undecidedness) but only to illustrate that some kind
of precaution is needed to keep the tail from wagging the dog.

Demorep has his precaution (the 50% approval quota).

Your precaution might just be a "voter beware" that undecidedness in your
method is not automatically the same as truncation in other better known
methods.

Whether that is sufficient or not would depend on the sophistication level
of the voters.

One related idea that I have thought about is the missing letter E in
grade voting (based on A, B, C, D, F).  If a voter has no grade for some
particular candidate, consider that grade to be an E, between D and F in
the pairwise comparisons.

So it counts as failing in the pass/fail reckoning, but isn't the worst
possible in the pairwise reckoning.

Forest


On Wed, 26 Sep 2001, Jobst Heitzig wrote in part:

> I would like to defend my opinion that voters should have the option 
> to express "undecidedness" about certain pairs of alternatives, or, in
> other words, to "abstain" from some but not all pairwise decisions.
> 

<snip>

Forest