[EM] WDS reply to Dave Ketchum elementary questions re range voting

[Dave Ketchum]

In a different conversation your words could be useful.

This one is on a different topic:

WDS enthusiastically makes many assertions, expecting us to respond as if 
they express solid truth.

I suspect many of them, but lean on one where facts are available - he 
claims NY's lever machines are capable of doing "range (with single digit 
scores)" with no modification required.

 From the web pages he refers to, NY machines are able to handle 300 
candidates in plurality method which would handle 30 candidates his way - 
and a general election could be expected to have more than 30 candidates - 
beyond his capacity.

Now, after the debate about assertions, there could be a discussion as to 
compromises to shoehorn range voting into these machines - and your words 
could be useful.

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 15:51:57 -0400 Abd ulRahman Lomax wrote:

> At 04:01 AM 8/16/2005, Dave Ketchum wrote:
> It has heard of NY and lever machines - exactly what I vote on and think 
> about.  Says they are able to handle elections with up to 300 candidates.
> 
>> With range chewing up slots 10 times as fast as plurality, capacity 
>> shrinks to 30 candidates.
> 
> 
> This assumes that the granularity is 10 or ll, depending. Range reduces 
> to Approval with granularity 2 and requires only one slot, same as 
> plurality. (no vote is zero, a vote is 1).
> 
> Adding improved granularity requires an additional slot per granularity 
> unit per candidate, *unless* multiple slot presses per candidate are 
> allowed, which would *add* the slot values together. I am concerned 
> about the complexity of voter education here, but it might not be so 
> bad. The instructions might say something like "Press additional levers 
> to refine your rating, maximum rating is 7". And then the slots would be 
> labelled "4", "2", and "1".
> 
> If this were practical (and voter education is the only issue, it is 
> practical for the machines, I am sure), then granularity 8 would require 
> three slots, granularity 16 would require four. Four would not be bad at 
> all.
> 
> But if additive voting were considered impractical, then simply having 
> two slots would be a refinement on Approval. One slot might be labeled 
> "Top" and the next "Acceptable." And they could be interpreted either as 
> simple Approval with additional information for later analysis, or as 
> Range (or, indeed, as Asset). granularity eleven (which is what requires 
> ten slots) is probably overkill, and definitely not politic to propose 
> at this time. Granularity 4 (two slots) could be enough, 8 would be more 
> refined, and 16 (four slots) really could be overkill.

-- 
  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.