[EM] Remember Toby

[robert bristow-johnson]

On May 31, 2011, at 10:46 PM, fsimmons at pcc.edu wrote:

>
> It seems to me that thevoters are more worried about the ballot type  
> and ease of voting it than they are
> of the exact counting rules.   There are several Condorcet methods  
> that are clone proof and monotonic
> without being too complicated.  I agree with Kevin that "elect the  
> CW if there is one, else elect the
> candidate ranked (or ranked above last) on the greatest number of  
> ballots" is plenty simple, and is much
> more satisfactory than MinMax or Copeland in other respects.

my question is if number of possible ranking levels is at least as  
large as the number of candidates on the ballot (not counting Write-In  
who can be accommodated without forcing the voter to equally rank any  
other candidates) if Candidates A through E are ranked 1 to 5, is the  
vote for Candidate E (who is ranked lowest) counted?  or must E be  
last by not being ranked to be not counted?

> But, as I said, what we really need to concentrate on is simplicity  
> in votinig, i.e. how do we make ballots
> that easy to use for "Hodge, fresh from the plough," as Lewis  
> Carroll put it.
>
> It has been averred many times on this list that in Australia, where  
> partial rankings are considered
> spoiled ballots,

that sure makes little sense.  is this related to the mandatory voting  
laws for Aussies i hear about?

> the vast majority of voters fill out their ballots by copying  
> "candidate cards" which are
> published  sample ballots recommended by the various candidates.
>
> Asset voting makes this automatic for 100% of the voters.  That's  
> probably going too far, so how do we
> get a compromise between Asset voting and Condorcet?

i forget what Asset voting is.  is it Approval or Score voting?  (if  
so, why a different name?)

L8r,

--

r b-j                  rbj at audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."