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

[Juho Laatu]

--- On Wed, 28/1/09, James Gilmour <jgilmour at globalnet.co.uk> wrote:

> I had written:
> > > I do not even think about putting all the
> > > remaining options into any
> > > order of preference, much less attempt it.
> 
> Juho Laatu  > Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 7:24 PM 
> > Same with me. It is however probably not
> > a big problem for you to pick some other
> > product if your favourite brand is out
> > of stock.
> 
> 
> Maybe, Juho, but that is VERY different from having to put
> ALL the other options into an order of preference  -  which
> is what was
> being demanded by some others here.
> 
> As I have said before, I am totally opposed to compulsory
> voting and I am totally opposed to having to rank every
> candidate when I
> genuinely do not have any preferences among some of them.
> 
> James

Yes, compulsory voting is not a good idea
but allowing partial and equal rankings is.

One can also allow some default (partial)
inheritance/preference orders to be used
(instead of forcing the voter to list all
candidates) when the number of candidates
is high (e.g. a group with 10 candidates,
party 30, and left or right wing 100) but
the voter will benefit of ranking more
than few of them.

Juho