# [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.

```