[EM] Ralph--rating every candidate low

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Ralph--

I'd said:

>With CR, it's transparently obvious that no one has any reason to
>not give maximum points to their favorite--that giving maximum points
>to compromise Kerry is in no way weakened by also giving maximim
>points to favorite Nader.

You replied:

You are surely mistaken. There will people who won't like any candidates
very much and will be strongly inclined to give them all fewer than the
maximum points unless the ballot is written in such a way that voters
are required or strongly advised to give at least one candidate maximum
points.

I reply:

True. Only the part after the dash is true:

>  --that giving maximum points
>to compromise Kerry is in no way weakened by also giving maximim
>points to favorite Nader.

I coudl have also said that it's obvious that no one has reason to vote 
anyone over his/her favorite.

Those are the things that I meant to say.

You continued:

With CR (range voting) as well as with approval voting, ballot
language must be considered a part of the method itself, because
different ballot language can result in significantly different methods.
This is an issue I haven't seen addressed very much on this list.

I reply:

True. I'd keep ballot-wording simple. I wouldn't tell people to give the 
best candidate maximum rating. If they're voting strategically, they will. 
If they're voting by principle, and no one is very good, maybe they won't 
give to anyone maximum points. If none of the candidates were any good, I'd 
rate them all at bottom.

For instance, with the candidate lineup of James' example (Kerry, Bush, 
Dean), I'd rate them all zero, because none of them is any good, and none of 
them deserves a vote.

Yes, little discussion has been given to ballot wording. My first suggestion 
for Approval is just "Vote for 1 or more:"

But maybe that sounds too much like illegal Plurality voting, and so it 
might be better to say: "Rate each candidate 1 or 0".

For CR I'd say "Indicate the ratings that you give to the candidates, from 
-10 to 10. If you don't rate a candidate, you're rating him/her 0."

For 0 to 10 ratings, I'd word it the same, except for substituting 0 to 10 
for -10 to 10. Not rating someone would still give him/her a 0 rating.

It seems likely that people would like -10 to 10 more than 0 to 10.

But maybe it's important to say on the ballot that you're giving points to 
the candidates, points that will be added up, and that the candidate getting 
the most points will be elected. So maybe the wording should be about giving 
points instead of rating candidates. Either that or the part about the 
points, and the count, could be elsewhere on the ballot.

As you said, it's been an under-discussed topic.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/