[EM] Voting by selecting a published ordering

[Paul Kislanko]

No, that is another mischaracterization of the original suggestion.

The whole EM list idea is now not worth my trouble, since everybody seems to
misinterpret everything anybody says and nobody wants to have a common
lexicon.

Shheeesh.  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: election-methods-bounces at electorama.com 
> [mailto:election-methods-bounces at electorama.com] On Behalf Of 
> Anthony Duff
> Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 7:28 PM
> To: election-methods at electorama.com
> Subject: Re: [EM] Voting by selecting a published ordering
> 
> --- 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.
> 
> Anthony
> 
> > 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.
> > 
> > DWK
> > 
> 
> 
> Send instant messages to your online friends 
> http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 
> ----
> election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em 
> for list info
>