<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On Jun 8, 2009, at 2:14 AM, Jan Kok wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 9:22 PM, Dave Ketchum<<a href="mailto:davek@clarityconnect.com">davek@clarityconnect.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">On Jun 7, 2009, at 8:33 PM, Jan Kok wrote:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Dave Ketchum<<a href="mailto:davek@clarityconnect.com">davek@clarityconnect.com</a>><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">wrote:<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">It matters what is said, not whether speaking in different languages<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">affects<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">whether different information can be contained in the same size<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">statement.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Paul is stating, correctly, that reading a ballot that only approves {B<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">C}<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">provides no information as to the voter's desires being B>C, B=C, or B<C<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">-<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">only preferring them over A.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">I was not disagreeing with Paul (at least not with the passage I<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">quoted). The point of my post was to show that both Paul and Warren<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">were right about some of the things they were saying, and to shed some<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">light on what may have been the core of their misunderstanding.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">On Jun 7, 2009, at 2:57 PM, Jan Kok wrote:<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">I understand quite well Warren's point that for 2 and 3-candidate<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">races, and with full ranking required, and equal ranking not allowed,<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">then Approval (with the "silly" votes excluded) and ranked ballots can<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">be encoded in the same number of bits. And yes, there is certainly an<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">algorithm for turning a binary number like 100 back into a ranking. Or<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">for turning an 8-bit number into 3 Approval or 3 ranked ballots.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">In his most recent post to EM, Paul wrote:<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">If "ranked ballots provide more information than approval ballots" is a<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">MYTH, then Mr. Smith should be able to decide from {B C} > {A} which<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">of {C B} is preferred by the approval voter over the other.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">In other words, Paul is saying that the ranked ballot "B>C>A" contains<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">some information (namely B>C) that is not contained in the Approval<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">ballot "{B,C} are approved".<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">I think the answer to this seeming paradox is that the ranked and<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Approval ballots contain the same amount but _different kinds_ of<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">information. In fact the Approval ballot contains information that can<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">not be determined from the ranked ballot: in the above example, can<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">you tell from the ranked ballot whether C would be "approved" by the<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">voter? ("Approved" meaning the voter considers C to be better than the<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">outcome expected if A and B were the only candidates.)<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Paradox?<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Warren said "equal amount of information". Paul (sort of) said "ranked<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">ballots have more info". So which is it, equal or more? If both are<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">right, doesn't that seem like a paradox? I went on to explain why it<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">only _seemed_ like a paradox, i.e. there was no paradox.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"> (ignoring Jan's naming error),<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Naming error? Not sure what you're talking about.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Paul is assigning B&C equal ranks , with A liked less. Then you have C as<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">least liked. Makes the studying difficult.<br></blockquote><br>Where did I say C was least liked? I don't see it.</div></blockquote><div><br></div>Go up to the paragraph before the one-word "Paradox" paragraph. You do not explicitly say that C is least liked, but ending with C being possibly not voted for implies least liked.<blockquote type="cite"><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Paul's approval ballot is approving<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">{B C} as if equally liked, and unable to imitate rank's ability to<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">include<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">relative liking of the two.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">The approval voter had to omit voting for A to indicate lesser liking for<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">A,<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">while the rank voter could indicate lesser liking for A in the ranking.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Yes, I agree that a ranked ballot contains info that can't be found in<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">the corresponding Approval ballot.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">And I assert equally that an Approval ballot contains info that can't<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">be found in the corresponding ranked ballot.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">How do we get here?</blockquote></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Too much starting from a dream, and then proceeding as if the dream made sense.</div><div><br></div><div>Think of 20 candidates. Expect many voters to NOT want to rank all 20; expect many voters to feel two or more are liked equally by them and thus deserve the same rank.</div><div><br></div><div>While some can wish for voters to be forced to rank all and no two with the same rank, those thinking more seriously can wish to minimize demands on the voters:</div><div> NOT required to rank all, so a voter who thinks Plurality can vote for a single candidate.</div><div> CAN assign the same rank to two or more, so a voter who thinks Approval can express the same thoughts.</div><div> NOT required to rank all.</div><div><br></div><div>With these possibilities a ranked vote can contain more information than is possible for an Approval vote.<br><blockquote type="cite"><div><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><br>I already explained that:<br><br>"In fact the Approval ballot contains information that can<br>not be determined from the ranked ballot: in the above example, can<br>you tell from the ranked ballot whether C would be "approved" by the<br>voter? ("Approved" meaning the voter considers C to be better than the<br>outcome expected if A and B were the only candidates.)"<br><br>So the Approval ballot contains the information that the voter<br>"approves" C, i.e. likes C better than the expected outcome between A<br>and B. You can't tell that from the ranked ballot B>C>A. Therefore:<br>"an Approval ballot contains info that can't be found in the<br>corresponding ranked ballot."<br><br><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">If you simply say "ranked", voters can do equal ranking, which permits<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">ranked voters to vote ballots IDENTICAL to approval by giving all approved<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">IDENTICAL ranks. All without losing rank's ability to support multiple<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">ranks.<br></blockquote><br>I think we're wandering off into the weeds here. The original<br>discussion, or at least the part I read, was only about 2 and 3<br>candidate elections, _strict rankings_ vs. Approval voting with vote<br>for all and vote for none not considered.<br><br>Yes, if you allow equal rankings, then you can vote Approval-style<br>with such ranked ballots. But then it needs more bits to represent<br>that type of ballot.<br><br><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Ranking has no need to ban equal ranking, that supports voters' occasional<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">desires for such. No great strain to count such - A=B is simply counted by<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">NEITHER counting A>B nor A<B.<br></blockquote><br>Sure.<br><br><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Going back to your initial statement:<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">It matters what is said, not whether speaking in different languages<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">affects<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">whether different information can be contained in the same size<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">statement.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">I'm not sure what the point is that you are trying to make. Maybe you<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">are saying that the type of information you gather from a ballot is<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">more important than the number of bits needed to represent that info.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">(Which would be a subjective statement.)<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Suppose there are 16 candidates.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> Then a 16-bit string can have a bit for each candidate indicating<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">whether or not approved.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> Can have 4 bits for each approved candidate, and a 4-bit field<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">indicating how many approved by this voter. Certainly takes less space if<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">total number of approval fields is less than 3*number-of-voters.<br></blockquote><br>Again, I think we're drifting away from the original topic.<br><br><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">But matters not. What matters is ability to recognize voters' use of<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">ability promised to them - and to count this.<br></blockquote><br>I'd say that's one of _several_ things that "matter" if you are going<br>to do voting reform activism in the real world.<br><br>Cheers,<br>- Jan<br><br><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Dave Ketchum</blockquote></div></blockquote><div><br></div>What follows wanders into straining the voting method beyond Approval or ranking.</div><div><br></div><div>Dave Ketchum<br><blockquote type="cite"><div><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#006312"><br></font></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">I'd say that the exact number of bits needed to represent a ballot is<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">not all that important - especially if the discussion is limited to 2<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">and 3-candidate elections! In general, more bits _might_ mean that the<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">voting method can make a better choice of winner. But more bits also<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">could mean more complicated ballots, asking voters for more<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">information than they want to bother with giving, and can make it<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">harder to summarize the ballot data so that it can be posted outside<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">polling places for the public to check. If you want less info, go for<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Approval. If you want lots of info, go for fine-grained Score Voting<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">(e.g. 0-99). If you want something in between, go for coarse-grained<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Score Voting (e.g. 0-3).<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Other than number of bits, some things that matter are: whether voters<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">or legislators would accept a given ballot style and associated voting<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">method (i.e. how hard is it to "sell" the voting method); how much and<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">what sort of strategic voting is encouraged by a particular voting<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">method, and the effect that has on election outcomes - for example<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Plurality voting encourages choosing the lesser evil, which maintains<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">a two-party duopoly and limits voters choices; how well does the<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">voting method do at picking the "best" candidate for winner (i.e.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Warren's Bayesian Regret calculations); cost of implementation,<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">including voting machine upgrades and voter education; how vulnerable<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">the voting method is to fraud; and so on.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Cheers,<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">- Jan</blockquote></blockquote></div></blockquote></div><br></body></html>