[EM] Cardinal Rating Condorcet Loser Elimination

[Dave Ketchum]

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 10:19:12 EDT Dgamble997 at aol.com wrote:

> Dave Ketchum wrote in part:
> 
>  >In public elections we need to have the voters understanding the method
>  >well enough to vote intelligently, and to be able to accept declared
>  >winners as appropriate to the vote count totals (which I claim should be
>  >public knowledge shortly after the polls close). Note - there can be
>  >absentee ballots counted later, BUT, the possible quantity of these should
>  >be publishable election night and, at least for Condorcet, these counts
>  >tell whether the counts are close enough to ties for the absentees to
>  >affect results
> 
> True, this method is complex but that isn't necessarily a problem. 
> People in New Zealand approved Meek STV in referenda and Meek STV is not 
> the simplest method in the world.


We have to live with complexity if it REALLY does enough good.  My point 
is that it is IMPORTANT for voters to understand how to vote in the method 
used AND to understand how the winner got chosen when looking at the results.

> 
>  >Utility, assumed - best forgotten about, for you cannot KNOW why Joe
>  >liked A better than B (the liking could have been part of deciding whether
>  >to rank A above or below B).
> 
> You don't have to know why Joe liked A better B just that he did.


That is my point - that the method should not make assumptions.

> 
>  >Utility, as a ballot item - best FOUGHT AGAINST, for you have to
>  >build this into the voting equipment, you have to explain to voters what
>  >it is all about, they have to translate their feelings into filling in the
>  >item, and then they will suspect they have been done in by not
>  >understanding this item as well as the politicians down the street.
> 
> Utility is a fairly simple idea -you like A but you like B more.
> 

BUT, utility as a ballot item would be an extra item on the ballot for the 
voter to understand and then decide what value to give this item for this 
candidate.
      Doing the item when constructing the ballot would be no big deal.
      Deciding what the numbers meant would be bigger.
      Understanding and using it intelligently would be a BIG challenge 
for the voter.


> David Gamble

-- 
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.