[EM] Has this idea been considered?

[Dave Ketchum]

Russ and Andrew each offer important thoughts.

Russ is right that overly complex methods will likely get rejected -  
and I agree they deserve such, though Approval is not near to a  
reasonable limit.

And Andrew is right that voters can accept something beyond Approval.   
Reviewing the steps as voters might think of them:
.     Approval is simply being able to voye for more than one, as if  
equals - easy to vote and easy to implement, but makes you wish for  
more.
.     Condorcet adds ranking, so you can vote for unequals such as  
Good that you truly like and Soso as second choice for being better  
than Bad, that you would happily forget.
.     Reasonable part of the ranking is ranking two or more as equally  
ranked.

So I looked for what Andrew was referring to as CIVS - seems like it  
deserves more bragging than I have heard.  Voters can easily get  
invited and vote via Internet in the flexibility doable that way.   
Read more at http://www.cs.cornell.edu/andru/civs.html

Seems like CIVS would be good to use as is in many places where voting  
via Internet makes sense - and shows using Condorcet - something  
adaptable to the way we normally do elections.

Dave Ketchum

On Jul 6, 2011, at 1:48 PM, Andrew Myers wrote:
> On 7/22/64 2:59 PM, Russ Paielli wrote:
>> ...I eventually realized I was kidding myself to think that those  
>> schemes will ever see the light of day in major public elections.  
>> What is the limit of complexity that the general public will accept  
>> on a large scale? I don't know, but I have my doubts that anything  
>> beyond simple Approval will ever pass muster -- and even that will  
>> be a hard sell.
> My experience with CIVS suggests that ranking choices is perfectly  
> comprehensible to ordinary people. There have been more than 3,000  
> elections run using CIVS, and more than 60,000 votes cast. These are  
> not technically savvy voters for the most part. To pick a few groups  
> rather arbitrarily, CIVS is being used daily by plant fanciers,  
> sports teams, book clubs, music lovers, prom organizers, beer  
> drinkers, fraternities, church groups, PBeM gamers, and families  
> naming pets and (!) children.
>
> If anything, to me ranking choices seems easier than Approval,  
> because the voter doesn't have to think about where to draw the  
> approve/disapprove cutoff, which I fear also encourages voters to  
> think strategically.
>
> -- Andrew