[EM] Truncation

[Dave Ketchum]

On Wed, 18 Sep 2002 17:38:02 -0700 (PDT) Forest Simmons wrote:

> On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Dave Ketchum wrote in part:
> 
> 
>>>[Adam wrote]
>>>At first I didn't like this idea, but its grown on me.  The simplicity
>>>to the voter of ABCD(E)F voting is worth it.  The voters who are
>>>interested and involved enough to actually need six distinct levels of
>>>approval are the same voters who will understand that the unmarked
>>>candidate will get the E grade.
>>>
>>[Dave responded]
>>This illusion of apparent simplicity is not real:
>>      As a student I can dream of A, and react to what I get - THIS I am
>>used to.
>>      In a poll I can grade a question, knowing the results may be
>>averaged - this is similar.
>>      As an involved voter I can get a headache from this opportunity.
>>Easy enough to give my true preference an A; what do I do about what is
>>left of Nader, Gore, Bush, Hagelin, Buchanan, etc., since I want them less
>>than A, but want to do all I can to help the least of the evils (likely
>>Bush or Gore) win over the rest.
>>      As a voter who gets a headache from the apparent opportunity
>>existing, what stops me from rounding up my friends and starting a riot?
>>
> 
> The voter has an advantage over the teacher, namely the secret ballot.
> When a student is on the borderline between B and C, I have to be prepared
> (as a teacher) to justify my choice to him/her.  In the voting booth I can
> flip a coin without having to justify my vote to anybody.
> 
> With six available levels, flipping a coin to decide borderline cases is
> (in elections with many thousands of voters) statistically tantamount to
> having hundreds of levels of choice.
> 
> Better to round your utility estimates than to round up your friends for a
> riot!
> 
> However, if voter psychology is not up to accepting the statistical
> argument, then we can always resort to the plus/minus options on the grade
> ballot.  Even with that complication it is still much simpler and more
> familiar (hence less confusing) and more versatile (allowing equality at
> various levels) than the standard ranked preference ballot (if there is
> such a thing).
> 

For the case I presented I care not about secrecy, and said nothing to 
suggest an interest in borderline decisions.  My goals were clear, and 
were presented.  The problem is in how to accomplish them since I can 
suspect others may be able to walk over me by understanding better how to 
take advantage of the flexibility offered by these rules.


> 
> Forest

-- 
  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.
                    If you want peace, work for justice.

----
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), 
please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em