[EM] Re: rank/approval cutoff ballot

[Araucaria Araucana]

[I'm back from vacation, and recovered somewhat from finding that I
will be laid off at the end of August.]

On 20 Jul 2005 at 08:35 UTC-0700, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> <other comments on James' ballot>

All valid concerns.  The only thing I might add is that for
Approval-cutoff ballot + Approval-Condorcet hybrid methods, it isn't
really necessary to have a fixed ranking system if you include a
"Neutral Preference" pseudo-candidate.  Most people would rank only
their approved candidates anyway, and you can count approval via votes
for a candidate against the NP candidate.

> 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.)

I agree with this almost entirely, except for the default neutral rank
for unmarked candidates.  But of course, you already state that it
depends on the tally method (aka vote analysis system).

>
> 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.

And we reach the key point!  Paper ballot is the only true one
counted.  The terminal is merely an assistant.

Q
-- 
araucaria dot araucana at gmail dot com
http://www.metafilter.com/user/23101
http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/User:Araucaria
Q = Qoph = "monkey/knot" -- see http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/alphabet.html