[EM] Re: "Implied ranked choice" method
rob at karmatics.com
Tue Aug 31 15:09:39 PDT 2004
Eric Gorr <eric <at> ericgorr.net> writes:
> If you choose to not pick one from this list, you can do the rankings
> yourself. I can't imagine this would not be important for general
> acceptance. People will want the option even if most do not use it.
Well, one of the main "marketing" benefits of the system is this: "You vote
for a single candidate exactly as you do today. Period."
If people are allowed to rank candidates themselves, how would you do
this "trivially"? Now you have to accomdate complex ballots, and it could be
argued that you are (slightly) disenfranchising those who do not want to rank
the candidates themselves, since you are potentially giving a strategic
advantage (however slight it may be) to those who do.
I'm not sure how you can say that people will demand such an option. Today
you do not have the option to rank candidates (in most elections), and I don't
see people going into the voting booths and getting up in arms about not being
able to do something the system was not designed to accomodate. (other than
the select few of us who understand why plurality is so broken -- which
doesn't apply to this situation) Anyway, if you then give people the ability
to explicitly rank the candidates, won't there be someone out there who will
demand that they be able to provide a full pairwise matrix? Where does it
The point is that there isn't such an option, the system isn't designed to
process ballots with such an option, so, you know, voters need to deal with it
and pick a single candidate like today.
So, can you tell me a significant real world advantage to allowing voters
explicitly rank them, other than simply speculating that they will demand it
if it is not offered? Will the election actually produce
significantly "better" results if people are allowed to do so?
More information about the Election-Methods