[EM] Intro to list (etc)

[Dave Ketchum]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 12:39:27 -0800 Rob Brown wrote:

> At 08:48 PM 10/27/2003, Dave Ketchum wrote:
> 
>> I read these two threads thru 2130 EST on Monday, but choose to respond to
>> this original.
>>
>> Looks like a GREAT idea, though a few details disturb me.
>>
>> You talk of a primary customer, who would give their users some 
>> experience with Condorcet, but as individual voters with no choice as 
>> to details of the implementation.
> 
> 
> Yes.  My client doesn't really want to so much "give them experience 
> with Condorcet", but simply to have a good way of doing polls that works 
> better than plurality for picking multiple candidates.  Their users are 
> unlikely to be particularly interested in the theory.  Some of them 
> will, I'm sure, but the #1 goal is to make this seem every bit as simple 
> to use and understand as the regular old plurality polls like you see 
> all over the web.
> 
> *My* goal is somewhat different than my client's....I want to warm 
> people up to Condorcet.  But my approach aligns well with my client's 
> interests.....make it seem simple.  If it seems complex, it will drive 
> people away.


I LIKE your goal, emphasizing a detail - it should not claim to 
be Condorcet unless it declares the winner that Condorcet would 
(recognizing that there are variations in how Condorcet is defined - just 
must pick one).

To both seem simple and be understandable, it needs to be simple (though 
resolving cycles may not be readily explainable beyond recognizing that 
they are near ties).

> 
>> Doing that well takes what I consider to be an almost complete 
>> program, so I would lay out design for a more complete program, 
>> planning to implement only the subset for starters, and then 
>> completing the rest if/when that seemed worth the extra effort.  Some 
>> details:
>>
>> List of candidates - done by whoever sets up election.  Can have long 
>> names but MUST have a unique label of not more than 4 characters, to 
>> allow for max quantities of candidates to be displayed in vote matrix.
> 
> 
> You mean to avoid the problem of it making the tables too wide?  There 
> ARE some options, for instance http://weblogz.com/voting/vertical.html , 
> but that is IE only.  I think I can do something for mozilla et al but 
> it won't be quite as pretty.  (I tried something below it that would 
> work on other browsers but its pretty ugly)


Certainly would not want you to exclude me by saying IE-only.

> 
> I'd hate to force the poll maker to come up with understandable names 
> that are 4 characters max.


Note that I was not restricting name size - which could be as long as you 
are willing to tolerate - just asking for abbreviations for excessively 
long names.  While I said 4, the limit on their size could be based on 
what would keep line length to what most users could display conveniently.

> 
>> Vote - every voter can vote, so this must be easy - perhaps permit 
>> voter to use either full or above short labels - there are other 
>> possible methods.  For a simulation mode, let "voter" vote as multiple 
>> voters choosing a vote pattern.


Having now looked at your demo, your picking method cares not how long the 
names are - I am still thinking of the matrix display.

>>
>> Display ballot count matrix, as if this was last voter before polls 
>> closed.  Could make sense to display this while the voter is voting, 
>> stepping as the voter goes thru ranking candidates from first to last 
>> voted by this voter.  This ONLY starts with matrix as of voter 
>> starting to vote, incremented according to voter's current proposed vote.
> 
> 
> Interesting idea with the dynamic updates.
> 
> Although honestly, I think only a small number of voters are going to be 
> interested in seeing the matrix itself.  I'm posting a response to 
> another message ( Displaying intermediate results in Condorcet-based 
> elections ) that covers my reasons for not wanting to show a matrix by 
> default, and for continuing in my quest for a way to show a simple bar 
> graph of scores.
> 
> -rob

>From another post:

> As for the utility of a graph of scores: such a graph has less 
> information than a pairwise matrix,  but that doesn't mean it is useless.  
> I tend to look at the various "outputs" like this:
> 
> Full set of ballots -- all information
     But hard to manually decipher for more than a very few candidates.
> Pairwise matrix -- lots of information
     Including letting anyone compare any two candidates to see how many 
voters preferred each over the other (and how many considered neither worth 
ranking).
> One score per candidate -- some information
     PROVIDED you can get in more info than ranking provides.  You can get 
in a bit more than ranking provides - you can show if #1 is liked MUCH 
better than #2 - but hard to explain how to read these scores.
> Ranking -- little information
     BUT, even in Plurality voting, ranking is often desired and often provided.
> Single winner -- least information

-- 
  davek at clarityconnect.com    people.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.