[EM] Re: "Implied ranked choice" method

[Rob Brown]

Eric Gorr <eric <at> ericgorr.net> writes:

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

Not sure I understand you.  If there is not an advantage to ranking them 
explicitly, why would you want to do so?  On the one hand, you say you would 
demand it, but on the other hand, you seem to say there is no advantage to it?

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

So, do you really "demand" to be able to do that today?  You actually go into 
the polls and say "please give me a ballot where I can rank the candidates, 
since voting for a single candidate is unsufficient"?  What do you say when 
they say "I'm sorry, you have to play by the same rules as everyone else"?

You may not be an eccentric, but you are one of the 0.00001 percent of the 
population that cares enough about such things to participate in an election 
methods mailing list.

You may be correct that it is unlikely that they would rank them the way you 
would.  Likewise, if your first choice candidate is elected, he will be 
unlikely to make all decisions in office as you would.  And?  Seems to be the 
nature of representation, and we deal with it.

As to voice interfaces...hmmm.  Do you really want to see reform happen or 
would you rather just debate things day in and day out?  You seem to want some 
absolute perfect system that will remain a pipe dream forever, rather than 
advocating something that can actually happen in the real world.  (actually, 
even with over 20 candidates, I'd take the interface I did over any voice 
driven system, but that's just me).

-rob