[EM] [CES #4429] Looking at Condorcet
juho4880 at yahoo.co.uk
Fri Feb 3 00:37:48 PST 2012
On 3.2.2012, at 0.21, Jameson Quinn wrote:
> 2012/2/2 Juho Laatu <juho4880 at yahoo.co.uk>
> Attempt 1: It is difficult to write something like "a>b>c" on the ballot paper, or to push buttons of the voting machine so that all the candidates will be in the correct order.
> Answer 1: Don't use such procedures. If you want to be sure that ranking at least as easy as rating, use same ballots as with rating. You can derive rankings from them.
> This is a perfectly satisfactory answer (as long as the election method does not reward dishonest strategy). But in my experience, it is used more to dismiss than to answer the question; and for that, it does not serve.
I excluded strategic voting since different rated/ranked methods differ a lot, and this is maybe not that much linked to the actual rating/ranking procedure.
I used words that "dismissed" the problem. But actually I think rating style ballots (or ballots that can be used also for ratings) are pretty good and often the primary choice for ranked methods. In those cases where other approaches are better for ranking, there must be either additional benefits that balance the more complex voting procedure, or the procedure must be simpler.
I went through a number of different ballot formats in my head, including ones with consinuous scale on a line, ones with empty boxes for writing candidate numbers or ratings, and ones that included clicking and dragging on a computer screen. I didn't find any good examples where rankings would naturally lead to a ballot format that is more difficult to use, and the ratings style alternative would be less natural to use for rankings than this comples format. Do you have some good examples? Maybe in some extreme environments?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Election-Methods