[EM] Limited ranks correction

[Forest Simmons]

4^5 = 1024, not 5^4 = 625 code words!

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: *Forest Simmons* <fsimmons at pcc.edu>
Date: Friday, February 12, 2021
Subject: Limited ran

On Friday, February 12, 2021, Forest Simmons <fsimmons at pcc.edu> wrote:

> It pains me to see all of the ranked ballot proposals that unnecessarily
> limit preferences to three or four alternatives because of ignorance of
> simple higher resolution ballots that can be easily marked and read (by
> hand or by machine) without ambiguity or confusion from poorly formed
> characters, stray marks, etc.
>
> A method that allows only three or four candidates to be ranked cannot
> satisfy clone independence ... the only indispensable justification for
> scrapping First Past the Post Plurality. And (beyond that) it exacerbates
> the biggest IRV/STV/RCV defect, the high likelihood that one's choices will
> be completely exhausted before the final rounds unless you rank lesser
> evils at the expense of alternatives you like better, because of ranking
> limitations that highlight the effect of premature eliminations.
>
> It is alleged that because of ambiguous handwriting and lack of room for
> more than a few "bubbles," only a handful of distinct ranks can be allowed.
>
> But what if each bubble has a different value?:
>
> [8]   [4]   [2]   [1]
>
> The rank of a candidate is the sum of its darkened bubble values ... a
> number between zero and fifteen.
>
> Suppose that there are to be 26 candidates, then instead of indicating
> their relative ranks with mere numbers, you can order them with standard
> alpha numeric code words ... Alpha1, Bravo2, Charlie3, Delta4, Echo5,
> Foxtrot6, ... Victor22, Whiskey23, Xray24, Yankee25, Zulu26. So the
> military already solved the ambiguity/ "noisy channel" commuunication
> problem in the early days of Morse code.
>
> These 26 code words cannot be confused with each other no matter how
> illegible the hand writing.
>
> If 625 alphabetically ordered code words are needed, there are that many
> easily distinguished five-letter words that satisfy the following rules:
>
> The 1st letter of each word must be a member of the set {A, F, L, Q}.
> The 2nd letter must be from {B, G, M, T}.
> The 3rd from {C, H, N, W}, the 4th from {D, J, P, Y}, and the last from
> {E, K, S, Z}.
>
> The important thing is that each of the five sets consists of four letters
> that cannot be confused among themselves. Futhermore letters in the same
> position come from different quarters of the alphabet, making alphabetical
> order easier to discern.
>
> The ballots are to be accompanied by an easily accessible table of code
> words numbered in alphabetical order. However, the voters can skip numbers
> that they don't need when there are more code words than candidates in the
> race. Similarly, it goes without saying that the same code word can be
> applied to more than one alternative when equal rankings are allowed. And
> of course, these code words can be adapted for high resolution ratings if
> needed in the Range/Score/Cardinal Ratings context.
>
> These suggestions are intended for absentee and other mail-in ballots ...
> electronic voting machines should allow in person voters to drag the names
> into a list in any order, and then print out paper copies for voter and
> precinct receipts.
>
> I am sure there are better ways of doing this, but then why do we still
> keep seeing proposals with unnecessarily crippling limitations on the
> number of distinct ranks?
>
> Comments? Suggestions?
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20210213/643850b2/attachment.html>