<HTML><BODY>
<div>This is mainly a response to one of the posts on the <span class="correction" id="">RV</span> list <br>
(sorry not worth signing up for just 1 list)<br>
<br>
"<span class="correction" id="">brokenladdercalendar</span>" <<span class="correction" id="">thebrokenladder</span>@...> wrote:<br>
> Okay, I don't care HOW simple the math is here, most people .... <br>
> are NOT going to jump<br>
> through mathematical hoops .... and then putting<br>
> <br>
> S + 99 - R - K<br>
><br>
> on the third ballot.<br>
<br>
One option would be to break down the range vote into sub-<br>
votes. For example, 3 "50's", 3 "25's", 3 "15's" and 3 "10's"<br>
<br>
The voter could then vote FOR on all 4 ballots for their <span class="correction" id="">favourite</span>.<br>
They would vote FOR on some of the votes for less <span class="correction" id="">favourites</span> <br>
and AGAINST for all ballots of their least <span class="correction" id="">favourite</span>.<br>
<br>
It is still pretty complex though. There would be 3*4*N ballots<br>
to be cast for an N candidate race. However, it ensures that the<br>
voters don't need to do complex <span class="correction" id="">maths</span> in their heads.<br>
<br>
In fairness, however, implementation complexity is always an issue<br>
with range. (It is its main <span class="correction" id="">Achilles</span> heel, at least when compared<br>
to approval)<br>
<br>
One solution is to allow the voter to pick the accuracy/difficulty <br>
for voting. The voter could take ballots weighted at<br>
<br>
99<br>
<br>
or<br>
<br>
66 and 33<br>
<br>
or<br>
<br>
50, 25, 15 and 9<br>
<br>
or<br>
<br>
50, 25, 10, 7, 5 and 2<br>
<br>
or <br>
<br>
50, 25, 12, 6, 3, 2 and 1<br>
<br>
Hopefully they all add up to 99.<br>
<br>
Also, I think that the last one allows any number from 0 to 99.<br>
<br>
This allows voters to choose their own accuracy. If they just<br>
want approval, they just take the 99 triplet. However, they can<br>
take more ballots to balance speed against accuracy.<br>
<br>
Also, a voter should probably be required to take ballots for<br>
all the candidates. Otherwise, a buyer could pay them not<br>
to vote for a specific candidate.<br>
<br>
The list of voters at the end would be a little more complex. It<br>
would have to list each voter and how many votes they cast<br>
for each candidate. This also slightly reduces the security as a<br>
voter may forget how many they cast for a specific candidate.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div style="clear: both;"><span class="correction" id="">Raphfrk</span><br>
--------------------<br>
Interesting site<br>
"what if anyone could modify the laws"<br>
<br>
<span class="correction" id="">www</span>.<span class="correction" id="">wikocracy</span>.<span class="correction" id="">com</span><br>
<br>
</div>
<div id="AOLMsgPart_0_c95fe2ea-7978-4878-ae16-5ae43eeb64e7" class="AOLPlainTextBody"><pre><tt>
</tt></pre>
</div>
<!-- end of AOLMsgPart_0_c95fe2ea-7978-4878-ae16-5ae43eeb64e7 -->
<div class="AOLPromoFooter">
<hr style="margin-top:10px;" />
<a href="http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100122638x1081283466x1074645346/aol?redir=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eaim%2Ecom%2Ffun%2Fmail%2F" target="_blank"><b>Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail</b></a> -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection.<br />
</div>
</BODY></HTML>