[EM] Ease of Voting

[Curt Siffert]

For my voting website (still in progress), I've been trying to get a 
flash designer to implement a voting UI that is compatible with all 
four vote-counting families.  I can write the backend that the Flash 
would plug into.  The roughdraft of the UI is here:

http://www.museworld.com/archives/001205.html

This would be an optional interface for people that really wanted to 
fine-tune their preferences or wanted to analyze different 
vote-counting methods.

This would obviously be for web-savvy folks.  But in general people 
think sliders are pretty intuitive.

Curt

On May 19, 2004, at 2:05 PM, bql at bolson.org wrote:

> 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/
>
> ----
> Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list 
> info
>