[EM] Rank Codes

[Forest Simmons]

Kristofer, thanks for your comments and suggestions.

Here's one more ... spell out the number names in old fashioned check
writing style:

Zero, One, Two, Three, Four, ... , Ninety-eight, Ninety-nine, One-bundred.

Make this long form code optional as you suggested.


On Saturday, February 13, 2021, Kristofer Munsterhjelm <km_elmet at t-online.de>
wrote:

> On 13/02/2021 03.29, Forest Simmons 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.
>
> I have an impression that the problem is not real, but imagined: that
> it's possible to do unlimited ranked ballots in practice without much
> difficulty. Otherwise, the jurisdictions that currently use STV would
> have encountered the problem and dealt with it already.
>
> So the problem is more one of perception: it seems obvious that unclear
> ballots are going to be hard to read, regardless of whether they
> actually will. And so, as a precautionary measure, the method gets
> limited to a few ranks.
>
> (There may also be technology-specific limitations, e.g. the
> jurisdiction in question uses mechanical voting machines that can't be
> adapted to more than this many ranks.)
>
> > 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.
>
> I think these would confuse quite a few voters.
>
> I'd probably just go with ordinary numbers and be fairly confident it's
> going to work out. But if the problem is indeed one of perception, then
> just saying "don't sweat it" isn't going to convince anyone who's sure
> there will be problems.
>
> Perhaps a study on ballot rejection rates would help provide evidence
> that it works well most of the time? I seem to recall reading on
> Reddit's EndFPTP forum that ballot spoilage rates are about the same for
> FPTP and STV.
>
> > 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.
>
> Of the two suggestions, I think I prefer this one. You could make this a
> minimal change by saying that a voter may use either ordinary numbers or
> codewords, so that voters who want to be extra sure that their ballots
> will be counted properly can use the codewords, while others may opt out
> if they think it's not worth the hassle.
>
> > 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'd prefer voting machines to be "Expensive Pencils" where the voter can
> input preferences and have a paper ballot printed out, and where that
> paper ballot is what gets counted. A voting machine is opaque; a
> printout is not.
>
> To mitigate chain voting, the machine could show the printout behind
> glass and deposit it directly into either the trash or the ballot box
> depending on the voter's choice. In addition, such a scheme would keep
> fingerprints and DNA off the ballot paper.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20210213/f8d034e4/attachment.html>