[EM] Voting by selecting a published ordering

[Anthony Duff]

--- "Simmons, Forest" <simmonfo at up.edu> wrote:
> Note that Eppley's suggestion (in its simplest forms) requires only a standard
> plurality style ballot, and each voter marks only one alternative (a candidate's
> name or a code word for somebody else's published ordering).
>  
> This is exactly the kind of simplicity that we need to get a viable improvement
> over plurality for public elections.
>  
> Forest

I agree.  Some thoughts:

This ballot method would suit Australia very well, where, in my experience, nearly
every voter votes some candidates recommended preferences.

There will always by some few voters who would like, and insist, on voting their
own preferences.  I would suggest dealing with them by giving them a diferent
ballot that allows tehm to fully vote their rankings.  I would expect that the
number of voters wanting to do this would be so small that the manual entry of
their votes into the counting program would not to overly time consuming.  I
suspect that far more people would want to have the option of being able to vote
their own personal rankings than would actually bother to do so.

I would expect many major candidates would set their published ordering as a
bullet vote for themself.  They should be *allowed* to do this, shouldn't they?
But if many do, would you consider it a problem?

This balloting method could use the existing plurality ballot.  That makes it
extremely easy on the unsuspecting voter who simply turns up at the next election.
 However, doesn't it leave open the criticism that you are introducing ranked
voting "by stealth".

Anthony




	

	
		
____________________________________________________ 
On Yahoo!7 
Messenger - Make free PC-to-PC calls to your friends overseas. 
http://au.messenger.yahoo.com