[EM] Voting by selecting a published ordering

Anthony Duff anthony_duff at yahoo.com.au
Mon Apr 17 17:28:07 PDT 2006

--- Dave Ketchum <davek at clarityconnect.com> wrote:
> Actually, this debate is becoming complex beyond any hope of value.

I agree.

The suggestion was that voting could be modified from plurality by converting a
mark for a single candidate to a rank order as pre-defined by the candidate.  I
noted that this might be criticised as introducing rank balloting be stealth.

This criticism is not one to be afraid of.  I think the original suggestion is a
very good idea, and it is a move that advocates for voting change should make.  I
predict that someone will make the criticism.  This, in itself, would be a good
thing in bringing voting reform into open debate.

When someone says you are attempting reform by stealth, I suggest that you counter
by explaining the fundmental flaws of pluralilty.  You are trying to fix a voting
system that has never worked well for anything bigger than a two-candidate
election, and you are trying to minimise practical difficulties, such as pain to
the voters, and avoiding having to replace voting equipment.

Alternatively, it is posiible that no one will make the criticism.  It might
simply be universally seen as a very good idea.  It need not mean anything to the
major parties who don't want to distribute preferences.  It may be seen as only a
minor thing relevant to minor candidates, "so that their supporters' votes aren't
wasted", one might say.  At this level of argument, you'll even be able to be in
comlete agreement with IRV advocats.
If the expected voting pattern is going to be:
45 A
45 B
10 CAB
Then it doesn't matter whether the count method is IRV or condorcet.


> The lists had value in approaching the capability of ranked choice on 
> voting machines that can handle ONLY simple preference voting.
> They had problems in that there would need to be many lists - often 
> several for each candidate - those ready to give A first preference may 
> want B or C or D or E for second preference.
> BUT - as soon as you want complications such as described below:
>       You need a more capable machine.
>       Which could have ranked choice built in.
>       And has little need for anything more, for ranked choice can do any 
> vote the lists dream of - with actually simpler rules for voters and 
> machine builders.

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list