[EM] Comparing ranked versus unranked methods

[Adam Tarr]

I was going to bring this up in my discussion of IRV versus Approval with 
Donald Davidson, but I decided it was a separate topic.

I think that it is worth comparing methods that do not require ranked 
ballots and methods that do require ranked ballots on separate 
planes.  Since methods that do not require ranked ballots tend to be very 
easy to implement, understand, and tally, they have a significant advantage 
when pushing for reform on a small scale.

In single winner, this means basically approval voting or plurality 
voting.  Are there any strategic advantages to plurality in this comparison?

In multi-winner, there are a wide variety of methods that don't need ranked 
ballots.  I prefer open party list; some prefer closed party list or single 
non-transferrable vote.  Plurality at-large is a pretty poor method by 
almost all accounts.

I'm sure these issues have been brought up before on this list.  The main 
reason I mention it again is because I feel it is unfair to compare ranked 
and unranked methods without giving proper deference to the ease of 
implementation the non-ranked methods have.  I prefer Condorcet to Approval 
by significant margin, but recognize that Approval is a worthy ledge to 
reach for in electoral reform.  I think Approval blows IRV out of the 
water, and moreover I think that the comparison is unfair since IRV is more 
complicated and harder to implement "effectively"  (if that term can be 
applied to IRV).

Similarly, I see the advantages of STV over open party list, but the issues 
with STV implementation make me wonder if it is ever worth it to move 
beyond open list in most multi-winner elections.

-Adam