[EM] Why the concept of "sincere" votes in Range is flawed.

Jonathan Lundell jlundell at pobox.com
Mon Dec 1 15:38:43 PST 2008

On Nov 30, 2008, at 9:44 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

> It certainly is not an expression of "approval," hence I have often  
> stated that ballot instructions for voters should not use the word  
> "Approve." The instructions *might* use the word "accept," but even  
> that is doubtful. Voters aren't stupid. A statement could be like,  
> "This election will pick one winner. You may vote for as many  
> candidates as you choose to support, including a write-in candidate.  
> The winner will be the candidate who receives the most votes."

I agree with this sentiment, by the way. The voters should be told how  
the method works, and left to their own devices. It eliminates the  
value-laden discussion of whether a ballot is "honest" or not, though  
of course it doesn't eliminate strategic considerations.

Ranked-preference methods (including IRV and any Condorcet method) are  
a little more difficult in this respect, since by far the simplest  
voter instruction is "rank the candidates in order of preference",  
rather than trying to explain the tabulation method in detail.

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list