<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">Dave Ketchum wrote in part:<BR>
<BR>
>In public elections we need to have the voters understanding the method<BR>
>well enough to vote intelligently, and to be able to accept declared<BR>
>winners as appropriate to the vote count totals (which I claim should be<BR>
>public knowledge shortly after the polls close). Note - there can be<BR>
>absentee ballots counted later, BUT, the possible quantity of these should<BR>
>be publishable election night and, at least for Condorcet, these counts<BR>
>tell whether the counts are close enough to ties for the absentees to<BR>
>affect results <BR>
<BR>
True, this method is complex but that isn't necessarily a problem. People in New Zealand approved Meek STV in referenda and Meek STV is not the simplest method in the world.<BR>
<BR>
>Utility, assumed - best forgotten about, for you cannot KNOW why Joe<BR>
>liked A better than B (the liking could have been part of deciding whether<BR>
>to rank A above or below B).<BR>
<BR>
You don't have to know why Joe liked A better B just that he did.<BR>
<BR>
>Utility, as a ballot item - best FOUGHT AGAINST, for you have to<BR>
>build this into the voting equipment, you have to explain to voters what<BR>
>it is all about, they have to translate their feelings into filling in the<BR>
>item, and then they will suspect they have been done in by not<BR>
>understanding this item as well as the politicians down the street.<BR>
<BR>
Utility is a fairly simple idea -you like A but you like B more.<BR>
<BR>
David Gamble<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></HTML>