[EM] Re: "Implied ranked choice" method

[Eric Gorr]

At 10:09 PM +0000 8/31/04, Rob Brown wrote:
>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"?

You can't and I never stated that you could.

I only stated that it would be trivial to add the additional features 
to the software, not that the interface would be optimal.

I have a feeling that the interface will have to be voice driven and 
understand natural language so that people can say things like "place 
a before b", etc. Where 'a' is a candidate, candidates of a 
particular party, candidates from major parties, etc.

I have yet to see a non-voice interface that I thought would work 
well when the number of candidates grew much beyond 20 or so.

>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.

You are welcome to show that such a strategic advantage would exist 
for MAM, using an example of a good Condorcet method.

However, nothing is given away...people can rank all of the 
candidates if they choose to.

>I'm not sure how you can say that people will demand such an option.

Because I would demand such flexibility. I do not consider myself to 
be eccentric. It is unlikely that any candidate would ever rank the 
available options the same way I would and I would likely trust my 
opinion above all others in this situation.