<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7226.0">
<TITLE>[Condorcet] Re: Voting as duty (was ties & truncation)</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV id=idOWAReplyText35977 dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>Somebody thought that the
candidates would frequently fail to be ratified by the electorate.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>Well, if the statisticians
take this into account properly, and submit for ratification only those
candidates that have a 99 percent chance of being ratified, then, by definition,
it will be ratified 99 percent of the time.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>If the population size required for this 99
percent confidence is greater than the size of the electorate, then the entire
electorate will have to vote.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>If it is found that the sample has to
be that large in order to get the 99 percent confidence interval, then the
voters will know that their is a significant chance that their ballots will be
pivotal, so it will be worth the trouble of ranking all of the viable candidates
carefully.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>So far none of the people who have
criticized this method has come up with a way that would make the voters who are
required to rank all of the candidates know for sure that it is going to be
worth all of the trouble.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>Forest</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><BR> </DIV>
</BODY>
</HTML>