[EM] Party's list or voters ranking, Let the voter choose.

[Anthony Duff]

--- Forest Simmons <fsimmons at pcc.edu> wrote: 
Re: [EM] recent postings

> My perspective on single winner methods has moved
> more and more towards
> the point of view that ranked ballots are costly in
> terms of voter
> patience (as opposed to the cost of voting machines,
> ballot counting,
> etc.),  ...

I agree.  
Some voters rank carefully.  Many voters cope.  Some
voters can’t cope with so much choice!

> Chris Benham recently pointed out again that IRV
> voters tend to rely on
> the guidance of candidates or parties, rather than
> figuring out their own
> rankings.

Chris is quite right.

> In other words, IRV has all of the cost of a ranked
> ballot system, but it
> functions as a Candidate Proxy method.  Why pay for
> IRV when you can get
> the same result from Candidate Proxy at bargain
> basement prices?

How about offering the voter a choice?  Let the voter
choose to either (A) mark 1 box to vote for a party’s
predefined ranked ballot, or (B) complete the ballot
with their own ranking.

This is a method that is in practice and works quite
well.  It is particularly useful when there are a
large number of candidates.
Most voters will take option (A).  Few voters take
option (B).  

Option (B) is more complicated to tally, count and
track transfers, and so is helpful that few take it. 
However, it is important, in principle, that voters
have the (B) option so that they are free to vote any
way they choose.


Anthony 



http://mobile.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Mobile
- Check & compose your email via SMS on your Telstra or Vodafone mobile.