[EM] C//A

[James Gilmour]

You have missed the point completely, ignoring issues of illiteracy (25% of adults) and disability and discrimination.

It is simpler to rank candidates "1", "2", "3", "4", etc or to rate them on a "1" to "7" scale with the options in seven clear
columns than to engage in any combinatorial addition.

JG


> -----Original Message-----
> From: election-methods-bounces at lists.electorama.com 
> [mailto:election-methods-bounces at lists.electorama.com] On 
> Behalf Of fsimmons at pcc.edu
> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 11:35 PM
> To: election-methods at lists.electorama.com
> Subject: [EM] C//A
> 
> Some folks have opined that the ballot line
> [candidate name]  (4)  (2)  (1)
> Is too complicated.
> 
> How about just
> [name]  (2)  (1)
> with the understanding that the score that you assign to the 
> name is the sum of the digits of the bubbles 
> that you darken, namely zero (for the empty sum), one, two, 
> or two plus one.
> 
> The only arithmetic you need to know is that  2+1 is greater 
> than 2, which is greater than one, which is 
> greater than nothing.
> 
> If that is too complicated, then we are left with the only 
> thing simpler, namely Plurality ballots, which 
> means that the possible methods are Plurality, Asset, 
> Approval, and SODA.
> 
> In any case, I think that the 2+1 style ballots are adequate 
> for Condorcet methods, because even when 
> your favorite is not in the top three cycle, you can still 
> rate these four candidates distinctly.
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em 
> for list info
>