[EM] Ease of Voting

[bql at bolson.org]

Let's pretend that the various methods are black-boxes on the "back end".
On the "front end" is the ballot. If a voter doesn't understand the
black-box back end, we hope they can at least understand how to express
themserves on the ballot.

Ballot Styles, from least to most complexity/information:
Pick One (plurality)
Approval
Ranked (IRV,Condorcet,Borda)
Rated (CR,IRNR)

I suppose Ranked and Rated could be accompanied by Mike O's "AERLO"
feature.

So, is it a problem to instruct a voter in the usage of a ballot?
"Choose One"
"Mark all choices you find to be acceptable."
"Enter 1 by your first choice, 2 by your second, and so on."
"Rate each choice on a scale of 1 to 10; 10 indicating your highest level
of preference."

Sociologists can argue over the best wording, but I think none of these is
out of reach of 95% of the voting populace. Maybe I'm too optimistic.

Ideally the method on the back end would be understandable, but it is less
crucial. But, if the back end is allowed to be a black box to some people
then I want to be absolutely certain that the method is fair and only
rewards honest votes. If we do our job here and find the perfect method,
no one will have to worry and they'll just be thinking about their
opinions of the available choices.

On Wed, 19 May 2004, Dave Ketchum wrote:

> I know I disagree with some, but HOPE to make some sales:
>
> If there is only one candidate that I care to rank above being a loser, I
> want to do simple bullet voting, and ask only that the method keep that
> simple.
>
> When I want more, such as to vote for both Gore and Nader in 2000, I see:
>
>       Condorcet as simplest - rank best first, use same thinking to rank
> best of remainder next, and continue until I consider remainder to not
> deserve ranking.  Desirable for the method to permit equal ranking - a
> simple and understandable enhancement that I will sometimes desire.
>
>       IRV - usually same as Condorcet, BUT, sometimes has a strategy
> component - which I need to understand, and sometimes to use in defense.
>
>       Plurality - the doing is simple, BUT the deciding is stressful for
> Gore/Nader, etc., for strategy OFTEN matters.
>
>       Approval - easy enough to approve best, and not approve worst, but
> remainder are a headache - approving medium can cause best to lose to
> medium, while not approving medium can let medium lose to worst.
>
>       Methods that require more from voter than the above - require
> learning about the method, and then learning enough about the candidates
> to use the method.
> --
>   davek at clarityconnect.com    people.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.
>
> ----
> Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>

Brian Olson
http://bolson.org/