[EM] Please read Range Voting article on YourHub

[Dave Ketchum]

I tried to register there - no luck, so here are my thoughts:

We start with runoffs being seen as too expensive in various ways.

Thus Plurality voting is unacceptable, for it only sees voters' first 
choices and, given three or more candidates, each could be first choice of 
a third of the voters - need to let the voters say more.  The three 
methods below promise needed capability without imposing excess complexity 
on voters.

Councilwoman Kathleen MacKenzie proposes IRV, a ranked choice (RC) method.

Jan Kok proposes Range Voting (RV), claiming "it is fully compatible with 
all existing voting machines".  I have to question this claim since RV, 
like RC, requires that the voter attach a number to each voted for 
candidate.  BUT, what does a difference of two in range mean?  Each voter 
has to decide intent; counting will decide meaning - let us stay with RC 
which provides needed meaning without excess complexity.

I propose Condorcet which, given the same ballots as IRV but scoring as if 
reporting a tournament, sometimes does better at selecting a winner.

So I see need for new voting machines - at least need for new/validated 
programming - since any above method will need this.  Then I read the 
horror stories too many new voting machines have earned.  Seems to me that 
machines that have earned horror stories after acceptance by a testing lab 
demonstrate that such labs are unable/unwilling to notice and report 
problems and/or some governments ignore reported problems.   BTW - what 
computers can do successfully demonstrates that they have to be capable of 
a task as simple as voting, PROVIDED that becomes the goal of those in the 
doing.

Finally, a deadline approaches if a needed ballot measure is to be on the 
ballot this November.  Perhaps the best that can be done is to propose 
moving ahead based on what I write above, while detail decisions are given 
needed time for more study (e.g., agreed to leave Plurality but studying 
where to get to).

In all three methods the voter selects from the candidates, the one or 
more worth positive rating:
      For RV each rating is a range number.
      For RC each rating is a rank number that shows only which is liked 
more, but does not attempt to be understood as to how much better one is 
liked than another.
      For both RV and Condorcet, ties are permitted.

For counting I ignore RV.  The two RC methods usually agree as to winner, 
but I show a set of 100 ballots for which they differ:  30 A; 22 B; 23 
C,B; 25 D,B:
      IRV simulates a runoff, discarding what it sees as least liked until 
what remains indicates a winner, but does not look at more of any voter's 
ranking - here 30 A beats 25 D.
      For each pair of candidates Condorcet will count how many voters 
have rated each as beating the other - here 70 B beats 30 A.  Normally one 
will win for beating every other, but such as M>N>O>M can happen with near 
ties and the rules must define how to decide the winner for such.

DWK

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 02:47:30 -0600 Jan Kok wrote:

> I've posted an article
> 
> MacKenzie's voting reform should use Range Voting
> http://denver.yourhub.com/Story.aspx?contentid=107610
> 
> Please go read it, and if you don't mind registering on the site, you
> can rate the editorial, and post some comments. If the page gets
> enough attention, it might get published in a Denver newspaper, which
> might lead to RV being adopted, or at least seriously considered, for
> Denver municipal elections.
> 
> Thanks,
> - Jan

-- 
  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.