[EM] Voting by selecting a published ordering

Dave Ketchum davek at clarityconnect.com
Mon Apr 3 22:02:02 PDT 2006

On Tue, 4 Apr 2006 12:51:34 +1000 (EST) Anthony Duff wrote:

> --- "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.
> 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?

Providing for and using this bullet voting makes much sense, especially 
when there are two major parties and everyone expects the winner to be one 
of them.

While there are many exceptions, the simplest is three candidates with 
equal power, pulling in three directions.  Not going to happen too often, 
but when it does, useful to be ready.  Useful here to have 6 published lists:
      A>B  A>C  B>A  B>C  C>A  C>B
Thus there is a votable list for each voter to vote their choice as to 
best and worst candidate.

> 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".

It is introducing much of the power of ranked choice at very little cost, 
since they can still vote Plurality.  Sell the BENEFIT.

But, by not disturbing the voting machines, you avoid the major expense.

> Anthony

  davek at clarityconnect.com    people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
  Dave Ketchum   108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY  13827-1708   607-687-5026
            Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
                  If you want peace, work for justice.

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list