[EM] uses of truncation

Dave Ketchum davek at clarityconnect.com
Tue Mar 20 03:00:59 PDT 2007

On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 00:25:27 -0400 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> At 03:20 AM 3/17/2007, Dave Ketchum wrote:
>>Offer me true Approval - the one that differs from Plurality only in 
>>permitting over votes - and we have something understandable and, 
>>occasionally, useful.
> This is true Approval. What else would it be?

Some, such as Mr. Lomax, have applied the label, Approval, to something 
else, of which the above is a subset.
> (Ballot design may vary, but the essence is that you may vote for one 
> or more candidates, and the candidate with the most votes wins.
>>Offer me Range and we are, presumably into something else:
>>     I need to understand its abilities and method of invocation, 
>>to decide if I wish to use such.
> Sure. There are variables, and Range advocates are not unanimous 
> about the best method of implementation. The basic idea is simple: 
> voters may assign a score or rating in a range of allowable scores. 
> It is generally assumed that this range is linear and integral, i.e., 
> the scores are of the form of N, N+1, N+2, ..., R-1, where the method 
> is Range R, and N is often assumed to be zero. Thus Approval is Range 2.
> There are two methods of determining the overall score for 
> candidates: summation and averaging. If everyone assigns a score to 
> every candidate, summation and averaging provide the same relative 
> results. However, because Range can be implemented on standard voting 
> equipment, as if each candidate were a race (i.e., a multiple choice 
> list), it is possible to amalgamate the scores by averaging.

I lose interest, QUICKLY, if asked to rate every candidate, so I would 
hope to be offered summation.

>>     My desires often remain with Plurality.  Is there a way to 
>>express that thought under Range?  Do I have the same power that I 
>>would have under Plurality or Approval?
> Yes, you have the same power. Just vote max rating for one candidate. 
> If it is summation Range, you are done. If it is average Range, then 
> you may have to rate all candidates or lose voting power. Range 
> advocates generally do seem to want to provide a means that voters 
> can indicate something like "Treat my blanks as zero rating," or they 
> will add an Abstain option. If you don't check the Abstain option, 
> you have voted a zero rating.
>>Point is that you complicate life for me, i.m.voter.  You claim to 
>>offer value for the cost - something to debate another day.
> More likely, I think, voters will vote min for anyone you consider a 
> truly bad choice for the office. And they will certainly vote max for 
> their favorite, and maybe, under some conditions, for another -- 
> typically the favorite among the top two -- and then some 
> intermediate votes for candidates that the voter wishes to express 
> some support for.
> It's not completely clear how voters will choose to vote. However, 
> what is clear is that the only way that Range makes it more 
> complicated is if a voter chooses to use intermediate ratings. Voter 
> education should include the understanding that it is not at all 
> obligatory to use these.

I see enough above for days when my desires run to Plurality or Approval.

Here intermediate values get mentioned, but it is a puzzle as to the smart 
way to decide on values for such that will give me the advantage that 
Range CLAIMS to offer.
  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