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

[Paul Kislanko]

My main objection is the notion that voters want to support a particular
vote-counting method's requitement for gathering information from voters.
No, us voters don't care whether the method needs maximum information (make
me rank 6 candidates when I only even care about a best and worst and
consider the others noise).

Lexically, when you say "most" or "a large number of" voters "want"
something, you need to justify that statement. I don't find what you said
credible based upon my experience with voters. 

I've suggested before that the analysis of methods be split into two parts.
What voters DO want is a collection mechanism that allows them to explicitly
state their preferences (i.e., ranked ballots that allow equal ranks and can
be truncated) and then a separate analysis of how those can be handled by
vote-counting systems.

I'm sorry you "don't get it", but all I can tell you is that until you do
you won't convince me or the vast majority of voters who don't care what
you're talking about that we should adopt your method. 

In general, it would be better to leave phrases like "voters want" out of a
discussion about which election methods work best under what circumstances.
Pretty much "what voters want" is what they have now.

> -----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 11:37 PM
> To: wds at math.temple.edu; kislanko at airmail.net; 
> election-methods at electorama.com
> Subject: Re: [EM] I eat my words (but not wholly)
> 
> I don't get it.  Supose there are 3 candidates.  Do you 
> really regard it
> as inconceivable that all voters could, without effort, learn enough
> about all 3 of them to rank them?  I think that could easily happen.
> 
> Let us suppose that they are "10000 people die", "5 die" and 
> "eternal happiness."
> Now is it really true that you are just too damn lazy to rank 
> them?  You
> insist on mentioning just one in your vote?  It seems to me there is
> a substantial subclass of elections in which everybody knows 
> their full
> ranking, and everybody feels like an idiot to behave in 
> Kislanko-laziness-style,
> and that feeling of don't-want-to-be-an-utter-idiot outweight 
> the feeling of
> want-to-save-1-second-of-work.   In that case, voters will
> rank everybody.   
> 
> I have no study to cite. I simply regard it as obvious.
> 
> Next, I rather dislike the idea that a method with truncation allowed
> can be considered in the same breath as "condorcet methods" at all.
> A lot of authors simply rfuse to even consider ballot truncation or
> equal-rankings-permitted.  Maybe they are dumb to do that, 
> but they do it,
> and then when they talk about "condorcet method" they are 
> referrring to 
> ranked ballot methods.  period.  Not "partial ranking maybe if I feel
> like it" ballot methods.  The opposite approach favored on EM is to
> allow total truncation and total equality.  According to EM, then,
> the following method:
>   1. the only vote you are allowed to submit is ther maximally lazy
> vote in which A=B=C=...=Z.
>   2. we will pick a random winner.
> Is a "condorcet method" and somebody like me has no right to object to
> that phraseology.  But I do object.  I think it has to mean something,
> and I think the more truncation you allow, the less the word 
> has any meaning.
> 
> I also think, there is a reason the Australians made 
> truncation illegal.
> Maybe you disagree with it, but obviously a large number of 
> people in the
> world feel truncation is bad, even just haviing one voter 
> truncate one vote is bad,
> and if your method refuses to cater to that feeling, well, then you
> are sacrificing something.
> (By "refuses to cater" I mean, "maassively screws up in 
> response to this
> voter behavior" in many cases.)
> 
> wds
> ----
> election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em 
> for list info
>