[EM] Plurality is not a "yes/no voting system"

[Adam Tarr]

Tom Ruen wrote:

>Plurality and runoffs (and Random ballot) don't need a checkbox-column style
>ballot. They CAN be implemented by voters offering a single name on a
>ballot. Similarly they can work without paper by voters using their bodies
>as ballots, moving around a room and joining a single group based on their
>vote decision. Plurality require voters to make a single choice - one of N
>options at a time. There's no multiple votes, no split votes - just one
>simple vote.

This is true, however as a practical matter I've never heard of a public 
election being run without any names on the ballot.  This is only a bit 
more significant than saying plurality can be implemented as a ranked 
ballot method.

>I define "One vote" methods are methods that allow a single name to be
>written on a ballot. That is very well defined I must think. How can anyone
>deny this category as unique? Even if the category is limited in possible
>methods, it deserves recognition.

OK, that's a reasonable definition, but that's not a definition of ballots, 
that's a definition of ballot instructions.  If we want to divide the 
methods into "what the voter is allowed to do", then this is a reasonable 
category.  The introduction should be changed if that's how you want to do it.

Again, the "yes/no" category is admittedly a bad name.  "traditional 
ballot" is the only decent name I've come up with, though.

>I believe "Approval" should be moved to "Ratings". I agree it is nice
>Approval can fit nicely under existing checkbox ballot format. However I
>don't necessarily think Approval is best implemented as a single-column
>"checkbox" ballot. I think approval better fits under a "radio-button"
>ballot, with your actual 2 column YES/NO ballot and allow explicit marks
>under either category. That makes more sense to me to help voters see what
>they are doing.

Heheh... I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that you don't live in 
Florida. ;)

One of the nice things about using approval on a standard ballot is it's 
impossible to submit a spoiled ballot.  Once you give someone the option to 
punch out more slots than allowed, you make it possible to mess up.  Keep 
it simple.

Although I agree that approval implemented in that fashion would belong in 
the rated methods section, and that section alone.

>1. One vote system - vote for one candidate at a time
>FORMAT: PREMADE BALLOTS HAVE COLUMN OF CANDIDATES, CHECKBOX BY EACH VOTE 
>FOR AT MOST ONE

"at a time" is still a poorly defined term.  If you really want to lay 
things out this way, I think you need to say one candidate per ballot, as 
oppose to "at a time".

>2. Ranking vote systems - rank candidates first, second, third...
>FORMAT: PREMADE BALLOTS HAVE N CHECKBOX COLUMNS FOR N RANKS
>VOTE FOR ONE CANDIDATE PER RANK COLUMN, NO MORE THAN ONE MARK PER CANDIDATE

This precludes tied rankings.

>Condorcet could be a pairwise rating ballot. Actually I'd not disagree with
>Condorcet implemented as a 3-level rating ballot, one mark per pair row.
>Notice each column is no longer a fixed choice.
>FOR EACH PAIR, VOTE FOR A, B or Equal.
>CANDIDATE-A  EQUAL        CANDIDATE-B
>O Apple                  O                O Banana
>O Apple                  O                O Coconut
>O Banana                O                O Coconut

Again, this makes it much easier to submit a spoiled ballot.  It also 
allows for logically inconsistent (cyclic) ballots.  Finally, it would be 
exhausting.  With six candidates, you would have to wade through 21 
pairwise contests.

>Again, I'd offer this as a way to "check" ballot is logically coherent. If a
>cyclic preference is offered, it can be noted to allow a revote.

Are you suggesting that some scanner check every ballot upon submission, 
and give the voter a chance to resubmit if there's a problem?  I suppose 
that would be a good step, although we should still choose the ballot 
format which minimizes the likelihood of voter error.

-Adam