[EM] Chicken Dilemma--To whom is it a problem? (pt 1)

[Michael Ossipoff]

Juhoi--

You wrote:

> We could have also methods with acceptability cutoffs. Would it make it more probable that you would rank all the candidates if the ballot would contain the following cutoff options? A > B > favourite_limit > C > D > acceptability_limit > E > F > totally_unacceptable_limit > G > H. This would at least make it clear that those G and H are totally unacceptable.

[/quote]

Sure, if the ballot officially provided a clear "entirely
unacceptable" point on the ballot, then I might be willing to rank the
Democrat, below that point, but over the Republican.   ...if the
Democrat is even microscopically, margnally, better than the
Republican.  ..but sometimes that's a big "if".

>
> Of course there is still an imaginary even lower category of not ranking them at all. But that category could in this case be already interpreted by others and media as "you do not have an opinion" or "you forgot to rank them".

True. Using the "entirely unacceptable" expressivity would avoid the
possibility of a mistaken interpretation that I'd merely forgotten to
rank the Dems, or been in a hurry, etc.

>
> Voters could also rank their worst competitors in the below totally_unacceptable_limit category. That would make the "not ranked message" less efficient. It is difficult to tell which voters truncated (irrationally) because of ignorance on how the method works, (rationally) because of trying to make their strongest (but not so bad) competitors look bad, or (rationally) carrying a message that they are totally unacceptable.

[/quote]

Sure, some would use it to make a false statement, but I'd use it honestly.

>
> Maybe you would not menton their names in the ballot even if the ballot would offer you an option to clearly tell them how much yu dislike them. (?)

[/quote]

I'd use the "entirely unacceptable" designation on the ballot, for the
Dems and Repubs, and for whoever else is that bad.

Michael Ossipoff