[EM] Re: paradigms...

[Paul Kislanko]

Jobst's original suggestion was that voters be allowed to rank A and B
equally, A>B, B>A or neither A nor B. It was dismissed as unnecessary since
he could just create a ranked ballot from which his individual preferences
could be inferred.

That is not possible. 

It wasn't about whether his choices alone would determine the outcome.

It was whether a method that claims to use pair-wise preferences should
allow voters to express to express pair-wise preferences.

So far, the list thinks "no." 

I find it amazing that the list thinks we should ignore voters' preferences
when defining an election method.

-----Original Message-----
From: election-methods-electorama.com-bounces at electorama.com
[mailto:election-methods-electorama.com-bounces at electorama.com] On Behalf Of
Rob Brown
Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 12:01 PM
To: election-methods at electorama.com
Subject: [EM] Re: paradigms...

I will give you that your example demonstrates that if your choices alone
were 
to decide the outcome, a system that only ranks the candidates can be
somewhat 
insufficient.

However, let's assume that the ranking system in question allows you to, 
rather than flipping a coin, simply rank A and B equally.  In other words, 
declare them a tie.

Now, since your ballot is *not* the only one that decides the outcome, the 
other voters will make your decision between A and B for you, exactly as you

wished.

It does what you want, only in a far more straightforward way.  Instead of 
allowing you to vote for a choice based on the votes of others, it simply 
allows you to defer to others things that you would rather not decide
yourself.

It is almost like you are insisting that you be able to explicitly vote for 
whoever wins, rather than just not vote.  What is the point?



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