[EM] Ballot formats (Re: new simple legal strategy to get IRV)

[robert bristow-johnson]

On 10/10/15 6:11 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
> On 10/10/2015 11:14 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>> On 10/9/15 6:28 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
>>> "Place a mark on the line corresponding to the rating you want to give.
>>> Further to the right is better."
>>>
>>> Candidate 1   worst |-------------------------------------------| best
>>>
>>> Candidate 2   worst |-------------------------------------------| best
>>>
>>> Candidate 3   worst |-------------------------------------------| best
>>>
>>> Candidate 4   worst |-------------------------------------------| best
>>> ...
>>> Candidate n   worst |-------------------------------------------| best
>> Score Voting (a.k.a. Range Voting).  Warren Smith will like it.  it's
>> what judges at the winter Olympics use for figure skating (and some
>> other events).  but my question continues to be: "how highly do you
>> score your second choice?"  and third choice?
>>
>> (Condorcet is better.)
> That's part of the reason I prefer median ratings, because there's much
> less incentive to exaggerate.
>
> But if you want Range and don't like strategy, there's always this
> DSV variant Warren has referred to in the past.
>
> 1. Rearrange the ballots in random order and create a new Range election.
> 2. Go down the list from first to last ballot.
> 2.1. Making a transformed version of the current ballot according to the
> best Range strategy given the ballots that have already been entered
> into the Range election.
> 2.2. Entering the transformed copy into the election.
> 3. Note who wins this Range election, or alternately note the outcome
> (total score for each).
> 4. Repeat from 1 a very large number of times.
> 5. Designate the candidate who won most often as the winner. Or
> alternately, perform an ordinary Range election with each iteration's
> outcome (from 3) as Range ballots.
>

and what legislative body are we going to convince to adopt that?

> The ballot format above could be used for rankings as well (if you're
> willing to disregard equal rank) in the same way that you can turn any
> rated ballot into a ranked ballot by sorting the candidates by their rating.

i still don't think it answers my question.  for the voter motivated to 
see his/her first choice getting elected, but wants to cover his/her ass 
with a contingency vote, the question remains:  "How highly does one 
score their second choice? And third choice?"

it's directly answered with a Ranked-Order Ballot, but not with a Score 
Ballot nor with the Approval Ballot.  this is why i just can't jump on 
Warren's bandwagon.   with ranked-choice voting, the voter knows 
directly what to do **if** the voter trusts that the tabulation method 
does not do something goofy with the marked ballots.  if the voter finds 
out later that ranking or rating his/her second choice too high hurt 
his/her first choice, that voter is still left with tactical thinking in 
the voting booth.

-- 

r b-j                  rbj at audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."