[EM] I eat my words (but not wholly)

[Paul Kislanko]

OK, one more time. I'm just a dumb voter and:
"Fact is, a lot of voters want to express
maximum information (natural human drive) and do not want to truncate
ballots."

is not defensible. I do NOT want to have to rank voters I want to lose.
Nobody in my precinct wants to even think about more than their favorite
(who here might be the one who bought them their last free beer). To say
that "a lot of voters want to express maximum information" is flat
ludicrous. Most of us who know what that means are at least lazy enough to
WANT to truncate ballots.

Cite some study, or poll or something if you want to claim that "a lot of
voters want to" do something I've never seen ANY voter do.... 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: election-methods-bounces at electorama.com 
> [mailto:election-methods-bounces at electorama.com] On Behalf Of 
> Warren Smith
> Sent: Friday, October 14, 2005 11:08 PM
> To: election-methods at electorama.com
> Subject: [EM] I eat my words (but not wholly)
> 
> I am afraid much of what venzke said in kind of demolishing 
> many of my claims in
> my "summary" (which was attempting to correct myself from 
> before...)... is true.
> Mea culpa.
> 
> But I do not buy some of his abuse-o-gram.  Fact is, a lot of 
> voters want to express
> maximum information (natural human drive) and do not want to 
> truncate ballots.
> Also in a lot of natural situations voters feel they DO know 
> about eveyr candidate in the
> race.  You argue it is  "joke" that I could imagine that.  I disagree.
> 
> Also, I do not buy the abuse of my "DH3 pathology".   The 
> strategies he considers
> "stupid" for voters are not stupid.  They can in fact be 
> "strategically forced"
> under the right assumptions about what the others are going 
> to do.  Far as I can see.
> 
> It sure looks like "WMDDA" is not a good idea thanks to the fact my
> "proofs" of some of its wonderful properties, are now busted.
> 
> And I still do not understand some of this jive about "risk 
> free burial"
> and still woudl like explicit election examples so I can understand.
> It it too handwavy at the moment.
> As you can see from this little episode, my mental abilities 
> are highly limited.
> The wikipages about ICA merely gave some extremely cryptic 
> hints about why
> explicit approval a bad idea.  The new emails coming at me 
> give a little more
> but it is still highly non-expicit.  By explicit, I mean, 
> actual election
> examples with numbers.
> 
> wds
> ----
> election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em 
> for list info
>