[EM] 120 Seats

[Paul Kislanko]

> Brian Olson wrote (in part): Thus an  
> election to fill 20 seats or 40 seats, all from one ballot, might  
> start to get onerous if there are 2-5 times as many 
> candidates as seats.

Not sure what you mean. From the voters' perspective the complexity is just
# of candidates if the method requires ranking all candidates, or just # of
seats, if the method gives her that many choices. 

For example, I am a voter on a panel that is to select the CSTV division 1
college baseball player of the year. There are 8,401 players from which to
choose. I don't find that "onerous" at all, because the "ballot" only asks
for my top 10. All I have to decide is how much weight I give to hitters,
starting pitchers, and relief pitchers with regard to how many of each
category get spots on my top 10.

(I really like this as a model, just replace "hitters" with "economic
policy", "starting pitchers" with "foreign policy" and "relief pitchers"
with "right-to-life" and you could tell from who I put in my top 10 and
their order what I think about the issues.)

But it's not "onerous" for me as a voter to pick 10 out of 8401, and it is
not "onerous" for a vote-counting method that only gets 10 items from each
voter to count.