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

James Gilmour jgilmour at globalnet.co.uk
Mon Jan 26 03:43:03 PST 2009

Jonathan Lundell  > Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 12:02 AM
> I'm not making a particularly important point here, only that if a  
> voter can pick a favorite (as required for plurality), then a voter  
> can build an ordered list.

I know it is straying from single-office single-winner elections in which this discussion arose, but I suspect not even one voter
marked a preference for all 450 candidates who stood in a 120-place STV-PR election some years ago.  (It was the first election for
a statutory regulatory medical council - doctors or nurses, I forget which.  Thereafter, the UK was divided into four territorial
electoral districts, so the numbers of seats in each were smaller and the numbers of candidates also smaller.)  My point is that
there comes a point when we will genuinely have no further preferences because we have no sensible basis on which to discriminate
among the remaining candidates.  Where that break point occurs will differ among voters  -  and that should be the voter's
individual choice.

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com 
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.13/1915 - Release Date: 25/01/2009 18:13

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list