[EM] Re: why ranking should be allowed for approved candidates only

[Russ Paielli]

Russ Paielli 6049awj02-at-sneakemail.com |EMlist| wrote:

> Ted,
> I'm still not getting it. Let me lay out my calculations more explicitly 
> just to be sure I'm not making any silly mistakes. I'll use "|" to 
> indicate the approval cutoff (I like to be different).
> 
> 27: A|B
> 24: B      result: C wins
> 49: C
> 
> 27: A
> 24: B      result: C wins
> 49: C
> 
> 27: A|B
> 24: B>A    result: A wins
> 49: C
> 
> 27: A
> 24: B>A    result: A wins
> 49: C
> 
> Do you agree with these results?
> 
> Considering these four cases, A wins if the 24 B voters approve A as 
> their second choice, or C wins if they don't. In either case, the 
> outcome is not affected by whether or not the 27 A voters rank their 
> unapproved candidates. Hence I don't see why this case is relevant to 
> the issue of allowing ranking of unapproved candidates.
> 
> The fact that A wins when the 24 B voters approve A seems reasonable to 
> me. Sure, those B voters might regret having approved A, but at least 
> they'll get one of their approved candidates elected.

Don't ask me what I was thinking when I wrote that last sentence. No, 
the B voters won't regret having approved A because it changed the 
winner from C to A, a step in the right direction for the B voters. Duh!

--Russ