[EM] Ease of Voting

[Dave Ketchum]

On Wed, 19 May 2004 14:05:16 -0700 (PDT) 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)


So you disagree with my ranking of complexity - but I see no details here 
as to HOW I am wrong.

> 
> 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."
> 

Your topic here seems to be how I record my decision, after making it - 
big deal I was emphasizing is that MAKING a voting decision can be 
difficult - for example, how define "acceptable" for Approval.


> 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.
> 

Voter does not need gory details of method - but DOES need understanding 
of the logic.


> 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
> 
> 
> 


-- 
  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.