[EM] rank/approval cutoff ballot

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 07:25 AM 7/20/2005, James Green-Armytage wrote:

>Hi folks,
>         Here's a rough idea for a paper rank/approval cutoff ballot.
>http://fc.antioch.edu/~james_green-armytage/vm/rank-cutoff-ballot.htm
>         Any comments?

Eight candidates, sixteen positions, one-of-sixteen per candidate.

Transmitting ballot data takes four bits per candidate, or four bytes for 
the ballot (presorting candidate names). However, if truncation or 
overvoting is allowed, it would take sixteen bits per candidate. Still not 
a great deal.

However, one problem. In an election here, there may be twenty different 
offices being filled. Not only would ballot complexity start to be a 
serious problem, but that complexity increases as the square of the number 
of candidates. (8 candidates, 2x8 ranks, 128 boxes total. 16 candidates, 
2x16 ranks, 512 boxes total.)

Making it easier for third parties to participate in the political process 
will, without any doubt, increase the number of candidates.

If something like asset voting or delegable proxy is implemented, people 
might run who would only expect to get a few votes. Full rank/approval 
ballots would not only become impossible, but setting up a rank system 
where every candidate must be ranked is ... ridiculous, unless candidates 
are all well-known and there are not too many of them. Limiting candidates 
is a basically anti-democratic move. So write-ins, at least, must be 
possible. And what if the voter prefers *two* write-ins over all the listed 
candidates?

I do think the whole concept of a ballot should be reconsidered.... 
Increasingly, voters will be able to vote at computer terminals. Generally, 
I don't like the trend, the way that it is being implemented, but there is 
a way that would make it safe.

In this idea, the terminal allows a *huge* number of candidates. It 
incorporates a search function that would allow any voter to quickly find a 
candidate by any portion of the name, and it would also allow listing 
candidates by party or slate. (The terminal would come up blank, no 
candidates shown, initially. Unless perhaps a candidate could get listed in 
the initial screen by presenting a hefty petition.) It allows the voter to 
pull up a customized list of candidates, and the voter then can rank them. 
Unmarked candidates would be considered neutrally ranked. (Exact procedure 
would depend on the vote analysis system. In asset voting it really doesn't 
matter. Ranked asset voting would apply ranking first, then, if ranking is 
exhausted, the votes would be applied according to a formula to the ranked 
candidates -- approved only! -- or maybe only first rank.)

And, of course, the terminal would print a paper receipt (there would be 
redundant printers in case of printer failure). The voter would inspect the 
receipt to verify its accuracy and would then deposit it in a secure box.